Paul Millsap

[myrak433]

Ok I am starting to feel like Millsap will be Horford's replacement rather than Josh Smith's. There games are so similar but Millsap is a better offensive player than Horford. I know it is still early, but: Maybe the Hawks need to think about moving Horford at or near the deadline because he would net the biggest return. Maybe Asik, Motiejunas or Terrence Jones, 3 million cash, and 2014 1st round draft pick.

[parson]

There's no way HOU has enough to offer.

The problem with trading Horford and keeping Millsap at PF is you would HAVE to get a good (and big, to make up for Millsap's lack of height) Center to replace Horford.

But the HOU deal is obscene.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[myrak433]

There's no way HOU has enough to offer.

The problem with trading Horford and keeping Millsap at PF is you would HAVE to get a good (and big, to make up for Millsap's lack of height) Center to replace Horford.

But the HOU deal is obscene.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

that is the only thing, getting enough value for Horford. but I do like Millsap's skill set better than Horford. though Millsap is undersized(height wise) he looks 6'6". I do think if we had a legit rim protector (Asik) and a go to SF who can create his own shot we would be a better team. Not sure who the SF would be though. I just wanted to get my fellow Hawk fans opinion.

[MaceCase]

Big reason behind Sap's success is that he's actually taking advantage of the spacing created by Al rather than trying to duplicate it. You don't want to create another situation such as the one he had in Utah where Jefferson had a monopoly on the paint and he was forced to work more outside than in.

[myrak433]

Big reason behind Sap's success is that he's actually taking advantage of the spacing created by Al rather than trying to duplicate it. You don't want to create another situation such as the one he had in Utah where Jefferson had a monopoly on the paint and he was forced to work more outside than in.

here is the thing............... Horford will never be the best player on a team that could be a championship contender. In saying that the Hawks will not be rivals of the top teams in the east this season and more than likely next season as well. So how can we get better and hope to make a serious threat to compete for a title? I say why not move your best asset in order to make the unit better as a whole? If moving Al would make the Hawks a more complete team and have starters who could be on a legitimate championship teams at two position that we are currently weak at (SF and C). Why not?

Now I believe that Asik is that C not sure who that SF would be, maybe the draft pick we get from Houston with this trade. But this is only one option. The other option could be moving Millsap for a starting Center. But the question shouldn't be which one of the two ( Horford or Millsap) should we trade or keep. The question should be which one would bring the Hawks the best return? That is the question.

[Jamaaliver]

I'd agree that Millsap (offensively) is a much better PF than AL. But AL brings so many other attributes to the table, and Millsap can't duplicate AL's rebounding, post defense and (surprisingly!) shot blocking.

But with Paul set to become a Free Agent a year earlier than AL, I can't see Ferry electing to spend big money to bring back Paul.

Not with Mike Scott and Lucas in the pipeline prepared to take larger roles.

I, sadly, think AL and Paul are both just stopgaps in Ferry's bigger plans.

[parson]

But the question shouldn't be which one of the two ( Horford or Millsap) should we trade or keep. The question should be which one would bring the Hawks the best return? That is the question.

Disagree. The question is how to get a worthwhile return for both of them, either through trade or continued usage.

However, to argue with your idea of adding assets by trading Horford, I'd rather have one really good player than 2 good ones. I'd rather consolidate our talent on the court (only 5 at a time) than load up on a truckload of good players. As someone else said, it's better to have one $20 bill than 2 $10s.

I posited that we can't get what we'd need by trading Horford, because we'd immediately need a big and good Center to pair with Millsap. You responded by saying we should trade our "best asset in order to make the unit better as a whole." Then you argued that your mysterious trade "would make the Hawks a more complete team and have starters who could be on a legitimate championship teams at two position that we are currently weak at (SF and C)." Name one possible trade to do that. I'm saying it's almost impossible to do what you're claiming.

[ATL Boy]

The pic we'd be getting from Houston would in the 26-30 range with the team they would have with Al. I love Asik but there's no way I'd trade Horford for Omer, a couple role players, and a crappy pick. Better trade imo would be Millsap for Asik: it would give Houston the PF they need to stretch the floor, and give us the franchise C which can move Horford to his natural position and keep him happy.

[myrak433]

But the question shouldn't be which one of the two ( Horford or Millsap) should we trade or keep. The question should be which one would bring the Hawks the best return? That is the question.

Disagree. The question is how to get a worthwhile return for both of them, either through trade or continued usage.

However, to argue with your idea of adding assets by trading Horford, I'd rather have one really good player than 2 good ones. I'd rather consolidate our talent on the court (only 5 at a time) than load up on a truckload of good players. As someone else said, it's better to have one $20 bill than 2 $10s.

I posited that we can't get what we'd need by trading Horford, because we'd immediately need a big and good Center to pair with Millsap. You responded by saying we should trade our "best asset in order to make the unit better as a whole." Then you argued that your mysterious trade "would make the Hawks a more complete team and have starters who could be on a legitimate championship teams at two position that we are currently weak at (SF and C)." Name one possible trade to do that. I'm saying it's almost impossible to do what you're claiming.

I agree with most of what you are saying. However, I am not sure what the difference in a really good player or a good player. I break down players as such. 1. elite talented, 2. above average, 3. average, 4. roll player, and 5. extra body. Now this is after said player has been in the league and has played enough minutes to gauge what type of player they are going to be.

ok I have Horford rated as 2 as well as Millsap and Asik. I have these players rated for different reasons. Millsap seems to be a boarderline elite talent offensively but his lack of size at the PF and lack of athleticism at the SF will always keep him from reaching elite. Horford is what he is, an above average player. Asik is a 2 only because he is a one dimensional player and that is defensive. But he is elite at it.

[MaceCase]

Big reason behind Sap's success is that he's actually taking advantage of the spacing created by Al rather than trying to duplicate it. You don't want to create another situation such as the one he had in Utah where Jefferson had a monopoly on the paint and he was forced to work more outside than in.

here is the thing............... Horford will never be the best player on a team that could be a championship contender. In saying that the Hawks will not be rivals of the top teams in the east this season and more than likely next season as well. So how can we get better and hope to make a serious threat to compete for a title? I say why not move your best asset in order to make the unit better as a whole? If moving Al would make the Hawks a more complete team and have starters who could be on a legitimate championship teams at two position that we are currently weak at (SF and C). Why not?

Now I believe that Asik is that C not sure who that SF would be, maybe the draft pick we get from Houston with this trade. But this is only one option. The other option could be moving Millsap for a starting Center. But the question shouldn't be which one of the two ( Horford or Millsap) should we trade or keep. The question should be which one would bring the Hawks the best return? That is the question.

Well if Al can't be the best player on a contender then I really don't know how to break it to you that neither will Millsap, Asik. Terrence Jones or the 28th pick in the draft.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Millsap's "better" offensive game has mostly displayed itself in years that he's been surrounded by better offensive talent. This would lend me to believe that he isn't an independently good offensive player but rather one who can take advantage of lesser concentration towards him. A trade of Al needs to return a comparable or better player otherwise you will see a decline at two positions instead of one.

The answer is obviously that Al would return the better package but it can't be around the thinking that Millsap would somehow lead the charge to contendership. Your initial trade idea is just going to be a rinse and repeat of the current team that we have, a bunch of good players with no clear star. If you are moving Al it has to be for a player or players you actually intend to rebuild around rather than just trying to plug better depth around this current squad.

[myrak433]

Masecase wrote
Well if Al can't be the best player on a contender then I really don't know how to break it to you that neither will Millsap, Asik. Terrence Jones or the 28th pick in the draft.

You still haven't addressed the fact that Millsap's "better" offensive game has mostly displayed itself in years that he's been surrounded by better offensive talent. This would lend me to believe that he isn't an independently good offensive player but rather one who can take advantage of lesser concentration towards him. A trade of Al needs to return a comparable or better player otherwise you will see a decline at two positions instead of one.

The answer is obviously that Al would return the better package but it can't be around the thinking that Millsap would somehow lead the charge to contendership. Your initial trade idea is just going to be a rinse and repeat of the current team that we have, a bunch of good players with no clear star. If you are moving Al it has to be for a player or players you actually intend to rebuild around rather than just trying to plug better depth around this current squad.

-


Millsap would not be the best player on a contending team. what he would be is a nice running mate and hopefully the third best player. But I will tell you what I have notice. Horford will never be the offensive player Millsap already is.

The reason I posted this was to get some dialogue going about the idea of moving Al. Not that I want to trade him. I am merely curious as to what DF's game plane is in building this team. Because I know this isn't it. When he first signed Millsap I thought it was to trade him latter. But now, and I know it is early, Millsap is out playing Horford. So why not keep the player that is playing better in the system you want to run?

And with Asik you would have the center position locked. With the late first round pick and Atlanta's own pick maybe we could move up. not sure how far but I am sure Atlanta will be picking in the Lottery this year. so lets say we get pick 6 or 7, would that be enough to package with later round pick say Houston ends up with the 23rd pick. The 23rd pick and 6th pick for the 4th pick. Is that a stretch? Even if it is I believe this draft will have some potential stars. I like Aaron Gordon he maybe available at 23.

I guess the difference between me and you is that I have came to the realization that we are rebuilding. I just don't know what direction we are going in yet.

[MaceCase]

The difference is that you really haven't taken proper stock of Ferry's moves. To think that he has any intention of being in the lottery....yet alone at or near the 6th or the 7th pick is really a far different take than any pundit, fan or GM has. You don't sign veterans such as Millsap in the first place to go along with Korver, Brand, Ayon, Carroll and Antic if your intention is to be a bad team. Given that we cannot even reconcile on the current makeup of the team then there's really no way to reach any other consensus here.

[Geaux_Hawks]

I think we can get by with Milsaps and Horford in the frontcourt. We're not going to be a superstar powerhouse, but we can easily build into an efficient, all around, but above average team. The problem is we need a "Go-to" guy on the wing or Schroeder/Teague to dominate the PG position. Evan Turner is finally starting to develop into a guy definitely deserving of a #2 selection. If we can muster a trade for him and still keep our 2014 pick then we can set ourselves up for future success to.

[parson]

^Give up assets for one year of Turner and the chance to overpay him in free agency? No, thank you. If I wanted him, I'd wait to bid on him this off-season. That way, he could either sign a reasonable contract or go somewhere else. We wouldn't have the pressure to re-sign him or "lose him for nothing." Any assets we traded to get him would work to force us to keep him, even if we had to pay more than he's worth.

Besides, it appears to me that Ferry likes SGs who can shoot from outside.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[myrak433]

^Give up assets for one year of Turner and the chance to overpay him in free agency? No, thank you. If I wanted him, I'd wait to bid on him this off-season. That way, he could either sign a reasonable contract or go somewhere else. We wouldn't have the pressure to re-sign him or "lose him for nothing." Any assets we traded to get him would work to force us to keep him, even if we had to pay more than he's worth.

Besides, it appears to me that Ferry likes SGs who can shoot from outside.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

First, we would be able to make him a qualifying Offer making him a restricted free agent so we don't have to lose him for nothing. Second, I would play him at SF and he FG % is better than Paul George. Turner's is 52% Paul George is about 47%. unless you mean from the three point line. But I and sure that Ferry also likes SFs that can defend other SFs and create there own shot. We have plenty of guys that can shoot from the three point line but we don't have any that can create his own shot.

[parson]

^ I didn't say I was worried about losing him for nothing; I said the threat of it would pressure us to pay more than we wanted to in order to keep him.

If you want him, then wait for free agency. Pay him only what he's worth and lose no assets trading for him.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[MaceCase]

Wings that create their own shot aren't a staple of the Spurs system. They initiate from the PF/C and PG positions thus why you can see Jeffrey/Al/Sap all killing it this year. All Bud requires are 3 & D guys from the 2/3 position a la Danny Green (Korver) and Kawhi Leonard (Carroll).

Now you may say "WHAT ABOUT GINOBILI!", well he's their 6th man not starter. We have Louis whose primary function is as a creator off the bench and Schroder has specifically been getting burn in his stead to serve this purpose too.

[myrak433]

Wings that create their own shot aren't a staple of the Spurs system. They initiate from the PF/C and PG positions thus why you can see Jeffrey/Al/Sap all killing it this year. All Bud requires are 3 & D guys from the 2/3 position a la Danny Green (Korver) and Kawhi Leonard (Carroll).

Now you may say "WHAT ABOUT GINOBILI!", well he's their 6th man not starter. We have Louis whose primary function is as a creator off the bench and Schroder has specifically been getting burn in his stead to serve this purpose too.

Manu Ginobili is there 6th man that plays 30 minutes a game and he is the one on the floor at the wing to close games out. That is what is important, not who starts. besides in order for the Spurs system to work here we first need a Tim Duncan then we need a Toney Parker. Turner could be our Manu Ginobili and Schroder could be our Parker. but that still leaves our Tim Duncan.

[MaceCase]

Manu hasn't played 30 minutes a game in quite some time. He's part of an equal minute rotation with all of those 3 and D guys.

I'll also fill you in on something else, you don't need to have Stockton and Malone in order for a pick and roll to work and you don't need Steve Nash in order for an uptempo offense to work. These are sound principles that you can apply to a myriad of personnel that can fulfill its core tenets. Do those systems and roles perform better at the hands of more talented players? Of course, but lets not pretend as if you can't run a simple play or system unless you have Hall of Famers. What would be the point of coaching then?

[Geaux_Hawks]

I'm not advocating giving up the whole farm, but you have to spend a little to make a little. Of course if it's too expensive, then avoid making a bad move. If Turner has turned the corner though, it wouldn't be a bad idea to make some kind of move for him whether that be via trade or RFA.

I understand we are building the team in the mold of the Spurs, but Duncan and Pop were/are the foundation of that franchise. Both Horford and Sap are nice pieces in the frontcourt but they aren't Duncan level pieces. You can't deny that Duncan was a key cog in the Spurs success over the past decade and a half. Like I say, if Turner is worthy, then adding him to build a quality team is a good idea. We don't a Duncan, but we will need an all around good team to compensate.