In short: If he can defend at the three in reasonable circumstances and if he can keep making more than 70% of his free throw attempts and take many, many, many, many fewer jump shots, then Smith could consistently be a special player over the last two years of his contract. And, if the worrying things about Smith's season, especially the settling for jump shots and the drop in offensive rebound rate, are indicative of an early peak that has already passed, then Smith's contract only runs two more years at a reasonable (at least under the current CBA) cost for a clearly above average player.
Good production? Check.
Room for plausible improvement? Check.
Reasonable contract? Check.
Result: the Atlanta Hawks are, reportedly, considering trade Josh Smith.
It started with Adrian Wojnarowski:
The Atlanta Hawks have started to gauge trade interest on forward Josh Smith, and Smith isn’t averse to ending his seven-year stay with his hometown team, league sources told Yahoo! Sports on Monday.Wojnarowski's report also included this priceless quote coming less than 365 days after the Hawks offered Joe Johnson his current contract:
Smith hasn’t requested a trade, but has privately told league friends that the Boston Celtics, New Jersey Nets, Houston Rockets and Orlando Magic are his preferred destinations should the Hawks decide to move him.
"The relationship has run its course," said a league source with knowledge of the dynamic.
"They’re looking for a change," one Eastern Conference executive said. "They would die to be rid of Joe Johnson’s contract or move Smith, but they won’t give [Smith] away. They want something in return."Let's ask the above questions with regard to Joe Johnson.
Good production? If you completely ignore defense.
Room for plausible improvement? He could shoot better next season.
Reasonable contract? No.
Result: the Atlanta Hawks are, reportedly, considering trade Josh Smith.
Trading Josh Smith is a defensible idea. It's at least as plausible that he's going to continue to be stubborn and undermine his talents as it is that he'll improve one more time. But one can't ignore that the consideration as to whether or not to trade Smith is influenced by the indefensible decision to give Joe Johnson $123 million. Trading Smith could improve the team but it's more likely just to change the team. Smith's trade value is at a two-year low and Johnson's contract will continue to limit the organization's flexibility.
Furthermore, a defensible idea does not guarantee competent execution. It was perfectly reasonable both for the Hawks decide they could keep just one of Marvin Williams and Josh Childress and to choose Williams. However, giving Williams $35 million to remain the team's fifth- or sixth-option and getting a lone second-round pick four years later in exchange for Childress are both terrible allocations of resources.
Trading Josh Smith for a superior player or for a collection of young players and draft picks could help the Atlanta Hawks. Trading Josh Smith for a lesser player and using any leftover money to re-sign Jamal Crawford will almost certainly not.
It should be noted that, of the four teams Wojnarowski lists as Smith's "preferred destinations," at least two (Boston and Orlando) make little practical sense (at least as part of a two-team trade). Making salaries work, Houston could offer Luis Scola and one of Terrence Williams, Goran Dragic, Courtney Lee or Patrick Patterson while any deal involving just the Nets would almost have to begin with Travis Outlaw a state of affairs that could only serve to bolster Marvin Williams' reputation.
It should be further noted (and mostly has not) that Josh Smith still has a 15% trade kicker, further complicating any responsible speculation.
6 comments:
I think the Hawks would be well served to deal Josh to Minny for Derrick Williams (plus Pekovic, Tolliver, and Ridnour or Flynn).
talk of discussions doesn't mean that a trade is imminent. if you look to trade in a Ford Mustang and car dealer comes back with a Honda Civic and three rims you're going to walk away.
the same can be said for these talks. Sund went to look for a trade for josh smith and other GMs came back with rubbish.
what does a 15% trade kicker even mean?
it means that a team would have to pay josh smith 4 million immediately for a trade to happen. people with trade kickers rarely get traded because owners have to REALLY want them/want to get rid of them to pay that kind of money to a player.
Bill Simmons noted in his draft preview that the next CBA may include a provision allowing each team to remove one player's contract from counting towards the cap. Team would still need to pay out on the deal, but it would not count towards the overall cap number.
If something like that is hovering out there under the next CBA, I don't see how you trade Smith to cope with Johnson's onerous contract. Unless, of course, you can get Dwight Howard in return...
I'M A HOME TEAM LOYALIST TO MY ATLANTA HAWKS TO GET RID OF J SMOOVE WOULD BE THE BIGGEST MISTAKE THEY COULD MAKE, ON THE COURT JOSH SMITH IS THE BASE OF THERE DEFENSIVE PRESSENCE. TO TRADE THEIR BIGGEST DEFENSIVE PLAYER FOR A SCORER WOULD BE A MISTAKE IF THEY CAN'T HOLD TEAMS WITHOUT ANY DEFENCE. LET BE HONEST I LOVE MY HAWKS BUT NO ONE ON THE TEAM IS A CONSTANCE PRODUCTIVE PLAYER.
Post a Comment