TheNorthCydeRises

Ummm . . you renounce their rights ( except Lou and Teague ) and make the room.Guaranteed salariesRudy - 17.9 millHorford - 12 millLou - 5.2 millJenkins - 1.25 mill2 first round picks - roughly 2.5 mill? ( depending on where Hawks/Nets and the Rockets finish )Total: roughly 38.75 millKeep Teague's hold at 6.1 mill and Ivan's at 1.25 millRenounce everyone at season's end and set them free.Hawks would have roughly 46 million in holds. Salary cap will be between 58 - 60 mill. Sign Jefferson at 11 - 13 mill per year. Fill out the rest of the team with scrubs.PG . . . Teague - MLE level PG - vet minimum guyG . . . Williams - Jenkins - vet minimum guyF . . . Rudy - 1st round pickPF . . . Horford - Ivan - 2nd round pickC . . . Jefferson -1st round pick - vet minimum guyThe fact is that it's going to cost about 16 million to keep both Josh and Zaza anyway. So go get a guy who can adequately play both C and PF at a high level if need be, in Jefferson.

If we shipped out Josh Smith for a SF, Drew would be forced to start either Zaza at C or Ivan at PF ( unless he starts Tolliver at PF ).C - ZazaPF - HorfordF - RudyThat does not make us smallerC - HorfordPF - IvanF - RudyThat makes us a little tougher.Either way, you now have a lineup that may be weaker defensively, but better balanced offensively. The 1st lineup is a far better rebounding group. The 2nd lineup is a far better shooting group.This team is not going to collapse if Josh Smith is not on the team, especially if we get a high quality SF like Rudy to insert into the lineup. We have enough depth on the frontline to at least keep us where we are right now.

If the plan is to trade Josh for Rudy . . then add Al Jefferson via free agency ( who will also command somewhere between Al money to MAX money ) . . I could be on board for that.New Frontline would beC - JeffersonPF - HorfordF - RudyThat'll be about a 45 million dollar frontline though.With that frontline, we may need an upgrade at PG. Maybe a more playmaking type of PG. With Teague being a restricted Free Agent, maybe the Hawks look at all options at PG before committing to Teague for the long haul.

That's actually the better comparison . . . Josh Smith and Michael Vick . . only from a scapegoat standpoint.Here's the thing though. Vick WAS a big reason why the Falcons couldn't get to that next level. He was easily the league's most exciting player while in ATL, and the city loved him But he wasn't the leader nor the passer the team needed. And despite Matt Ryan never winning a playoff game, he has proven that Vick could be replaced. Now he has to prove that he can win.The thing about the Hawks is that we can easily move Horford to his PF spot, if we can find an adequate big man ( above Zaza's level ) to put in the middle. And honestly, when Ivan got his chance at bigger minutes with Josh ( or Horford ) out of the lineup, he responded with above average numbers.Without Josh in the lineup, Horford could not only equal or surpass the points and rebound level of Josh, we may see a lot of the bad things that Josh brings to the table flat out disappear from this team. Remember, Josh had a career year ( albeit an inefficient one ) with no Horford in the lineup. So the opposite can ring true if Horford was here, but Josh wasn't around.Josh's fans want to may like he is indispensable. But if the Hawks were to flip Josh Smith for Rudy Gay right now, it's not like the Hawks would dramatically become worse. They may not become markedly better, but they wouldn't get worse.We'd have our legit SF, Horford would move to PF, and Zaza to C. And Ivan's minutes would increase. And Josh's bad/wild plays would disappear from this team. The defense may suffer, but the offense may become even better.I'll say it again though. Last night was NOT the time to be pointing a finger at Josh, even if he did throw the ball away at the end of the game. That finger needs to be squarely pointed at the coach.

I believe the deal with the Rockets pick, is that the lottery protection that the Rockets had on the pick, falls off if they make the playoffs. If they didn't make the playoffs by 2017, it turns into a 2nd round pick and cash.Right now here are where the teams are slotted:17) Brooklyn20) Houston ( which becomes our pick if they stay outside the top 14 )23) AtlantaWhat this new finding states, is that if the Hawks desire, they can swap slots with Brooklyn, putting them at 17 and Brooklyn at 23. Considering Brooklyn's salary situation, they may not mind this at all.But what if the end of the year standings looked like this?17) Houston20) Atlanta23) BrooklynWe would still get the Houston pick at #17. But if we didn't value anyone at #20, we could still swap slots with Brooklyn, and move down at #23.Honestly, those late round picks don't elevate us to where we want to be. Now, if the Hawks used those picks in a package with someone else on the Hawks ( namely Smith or Horford ), maybe those picks can be the thing that brings in a very talented player to the mix . . or even put us in the lottery.

Oh no you don't. Don't you DARE compare Josh Smith to the great Dominique Wilkins. Not even in the same stratosphere. There were 2 major reasons why the Hawks traded Nique.1) They were afraid that his asking price at the end of the year was going to be too high to re-sign2) Lenny Wilkins wasn't that fond of him, seeing that he cared more about scoring over defense.The DIFFERENCE, is that Nique was still the only guy on the team who could literally put the team on his back, even if that starting to occur less frequently. Also, we were the #1 seed in the East at a time where no Michael Jordan was in the league. You do NOT make that trade at that point. Nique deserved his shot at a title, on what was potentially the best team in Atlanta Hawk history. But the Hawks traded Nique for a guy who they thought was better than Nique, but didn't have nearly the competitive drive that Nique had.Josh Smith is what makes us good . . and what holds us back at the same time. Most of the fan base knows this. He is a great all-around player. He is NOT a superstar. And the reason why he's not even an All-Star, is because he makes CRITICAL MISTAKES at critical times.He doesn't deserve any blame for what happened last night. That's on our coach, who refused to play a bigger lineup vs the Wolves. But we all know who and what Josh Smith is. He is NOT the guy to be building a team around, because he's a complimentary player. And complimentary players are expendable.Which means EVERYONE on the team is expendable, if we can find a better player, or better combination of players to replace them.

What you need to remember is that the Nets had NO STAR under contract at the time of the trade. While Billy King may have made that deal to entice Deron to re-sign with the Nets, King was also fully committed to having JJ being the ONLY STAR in Brooklyn, if worst came to worst.They were moving into a new arena, and needed at least some name player to try to sell to the fans in Brooklyn. Trading a bunch of scrubs and even putting that option of trading draft picks for JJ, was what they had to do. ( Although I suspect that option may have been added AFTER King talked to Deron Williams and told him that he had JJ all but locked up. )People keep talking about how great of a deal this is for us. We'll see. Because as of right now, the majority of the fans are flat out crying because we don't have a legitimate SF on the team, and some are even willing to trade for Rudy Gay, a more athletic but lesser shooting version of JJ.All I know is that adding mid and low 1st round picks aren't going to get us to that next level. Your true impact players are usually found in the top half of the draft lottery. Mid to Low 1st round guys are usually solid starters who are complimentary players.If cap space and the ability to switch draft picks don't land us a star who is better than Smith or Horford, the only thing the trade would've done is give the fans false hope.Right now, neither team has a problem with the trade. Nor should they.

Josh Smith = 16.8pts, 8.2rbs, 3.6 ast, 1.47spg, 2.3bpg. . . in 34.8 minutes of play . . also needs 15.9 shots to score those 16.8 points, because he shoots 44% FG and 54% FTPekovic = 15.9pt, 8.3rbs, 1.0 ast, 0.67spg, 0.89bpg. . . in 31.5 minutes of play . . . only needs 12.6 shots to score those 15.9 points, because he shoots 51% FG and 78% FTSo knowing this, here's how these guys would look if they each averaged 36 minutes per gamePOINTS: Josh - 17.4 ( on 16.4 shots ) . . . Pekovic - 18.2 ( on 14.4 shots )REBOUNDS: Josh - 8.5 . . . Pekovic - 9.5ASSISTS: Josh - 3.8 . . . Pekovic - 1.2STEALS: Josh - 1.5 . . . Pekovic - 0.7BLOCKS: Josh - 2.4 . . . Pekovic - 1.0TURNOVERS: Josh - 3.1 . . . Pekovic - 2.2FG%: Josh - 44% . . . Pekovic - 51%FT%: Josh - 54% . . . Pekovic - 78%3 POINT ATT: Josh - 59 in 30 games . . . Pekovic - 0 in 28 gamesLONG 2 ATT: Josh - 129 in 30 games . . . Pekovic - 0 in 28 games

Once again, this is on Larry Drew.Why are you trying to turn SOFT players into TOUGH GUYS?Josh is in denial if he doesn't think he's soft, because he is. But Drew is at fault because he refused to start a big lineup with Smith at SF, Horford at PF, and Zaza at C. It was the big lineup that got us back in the game. But Drew's obsession with jumpshooters is what is limiting the potential of this team.Pekovic pretty much looked like Shaq tonight. 25 points - 18 rebounds? Really?Statistically, Josh and Al had fantastic games. The problem was at SF, in which Korver couldn't guard anybody tonight, and the bench did no better. When Drew FINALLY went to the big lineup, the Hawks made their run and almost pulled the game out.But guess who got a DNP tonight.IVANThe one guy on the team who we KNOW is not SOFT, but he gets a DNP?Why Larry? Why?

Watchman . . . Al did most of his "damage" in the 1st half of that game. In the 3rd quarter of that Celtics game, he was 0 - 1 FG . . with 1 rebound . . and 1 turnover . . 0 points . . and was ( -18 ) in the quarter. He did nothing in that 3rd quarter. The decisive quarter. Tonight, he was much better ( especially in the 2nd half ), but the Hawks still lost. Horford's effort tonight was 100x greater than what he brought against Boston.

SMH . . . now this dude is "Mr. Game Winner" all of a sudden? In another double OT thriller, JJ has to bail out the Nets again with a game winning jumper against the lowly Wizards. He's continuing the trend of late last year with the Hawks, in which he's starting to make a lot of late game jumpers to either tie or win games.

According to basketball-reference.com, his NJSI stands at .766, which would put him in the Somewhat Inconsistent category.He's shooting a little better from 3 point range this year and a lot better from 16 - 23 feet.

They can get both guys, if they wanted to.

I can't disagree with this at all.

So let's say Josh goes down with an injury that sidelines him for a month. Here SHOULD be the lineupPG - TeagueG - StevensonF - KorverPF - HorfordC - Zaza6th - Williams7th - Ivan8th - Jenkins/Morrow/Harris9th - Tolliver/PetroSo we move Horford to PF and Zaza to center. Zaza gets to start and play about 30 minutes a game. Horford gets more touches and shots in the halfcourt offense. Teague gets more control of the ball, especially in transition. The roles of Korver and Stevenson doesn't change.With no good center on the bench, Drew is forced to rotate both Zaza and Horford at center, by playing Ivan many more minutes at PF ( unless Drew opts to play Tolliver ). Ivan has produced all year when given extended minutes.So if we have guys who can replace Josh's point and rebound production, what is missing with Josh out of the lineup?- his defense ( mainly his help defense )- his low BBIQ plays on offenseOne of these things being out of the lineup is a GOOD thing. The other, not so good. So now, the only thing the TEAM and the coach has to do, is hold their own on defense, without the blocks, steals, deflections, and shot alterations that Josh provides. The Celtics prove that you don't need a shot blocker to play good to great defense.

I'm saying that neither of them are untouchable to the point that the Hawks would be completely lost if one of them went down. Zaza is a good, but inconsistent backup C, and Ivan is a good offensive backup PF.The other thing is that both Josh and Al take the same type of shots. It's not like one of them lives in the post, and we'd miss their post offense. Both of them love to shoot jumpers. So if one of them is out of the game, maybe a better jumpshooter gets to take some of their shots, or a guard gets more opportunities to penetrate to the hole, or a more physical man defender gets to be in the game who doesn't get blocks and steals . . . just stops.Remember Game 3 last year of the playoffs, in which Josh Smith ( and Zaza and Horford ) didn't play? This was our starting lineup.PG - TeagueG - HinrichF - JohnsonPF - WilliamsC - CollinsA game in which most Hawk fans were convinced we'd get blown out by 20+ points, turned out to be an OT thriller with the Hawks losing by 6. Why?- Collins played solid defense on KG, until KG made the adjustment and started shooting outside jumpers- Marvin, who sucked offensively, grabbed 11 boards . . or in other words, the defensive rebounds that Josh had grabbed in Games 1 and 2- JJ took as many shots in a game as you'll ever see him take ( 28 FG attempts ). And while he did shoot bad ( 11 - 28 FG ) he still managed to score 29 points and grabbed 8 rebounds- Teague played his best game of the playoffs, constantly staying on the attack and scored 23 points on 16 FG attempts- And for at least 1/2 of the game, Tracy McGrady found the fountain of youth and had a big 2nd quarter to keep the Hawks right with Boston. It would've been interesting to see how the game would've turned out, had T-Mac not physically broken down in the 2nd half.- Even a big vet like Dampier gave us decent minutes and production ( 6 points - 6 rebounds ).Of course, this is just one game, and not over a span of a few games. But the fact is that everything that Josh and Al and Zaza brought to the table was REPLACED by a collective group of guys doing specific things, while guys like JJ, Teague, and T-Mac concentrated on scoring the basketball.

Smith being out means more playing time for Ivan Johnson. Ivan Johnson is a better offensive player than Josh Smith, but nowhere near the defensive presence he is. But give Ivan 25 - 30 minutes a game, he could easily average 12 - 16 points and 8 rebounds on much better shooting ( 47% or higher ).Horford's production would go up. Zaza's production and minutes would go up. And Teague would be handling the ball more.While Josh's ability to help people out and defend at the rim would be gone, the question would be if the team as a whole could still get stops? In the few games in which Josh didn't play this year, the answer to that question has been YES . . . with the offense being much better as well.Josh needs to accept a complimentary role on the team, and not be the lead dog. Overall, he's just not a good halfcourt offensive player from a scoring standpoint. He'd be great as a playmaker from the high post. But as the primary scorer? Nah.With the people who can replace Al, the team definitely wouldn't collapse without Josh. Don't know if we'd be better, but we wouldn't collapse.This isn't the old days, in which Josh's backup is Shelden Williams and Matt Freije.

I'll say this once again . . . Memphis is NOT trying to move Rudy Gay, not right now at least. This is almost equal to the Josh Smith trade rumors of last year. The Hawks weren't exactly looking to trade him, but they were keeping their eyes open IF something they like became available.The same goes for Rudy this year. The Grantland and Bleacher Report articles about Gay simply go through the scenario of possible suitors for a Gay trade.

I know the focus is on Josh Smith for what went on last night. And it's easy to focus on him for some of the plays he made. The fact is though that at least Josh TRIED to make something happen, whether it be positive or negative.Early on in that 3rd quarter, he did go to the hole hard on two occasions to get to the FT line. The problem with Josh is that he's just not a reliable FT shooter ( which also makes him an unreliable scoring option ). Josh misses 3 out of 4 FTs in that stretch, while the Celtics just continued to methodically chip away at the lead.My thing is this though . . . where was AL HORFORD? What did he do to even try to stop or slow down what happened last night? Answer = NOTHING.He passed up shots. He was late on a few defensive rotations. He didn't rebound. Basically, he deferred to Josh, Lou, and anybody else. He had absolutely NO IMPACT in that quarter. None. If he is one of the leaders on the Hawks, this cannot happen. Smith tries, but he cannot do it. Horford doesn't even try ( until Smith is out with an injury ).Now we get to Larry Drew. So let me get this straight, you basically call out the Hawks for being soft when Boston turned up the pressure. But what did YOU DO to combat what Boston was doing? Yeah, you called a timeout after Boston scored 4 straight points, to so-call get the team back in focus. But you didn't call another timeout the rest of the quarter, waiting instead for TV timeouts to "talk" to the team.And here were your lineups to combat what Boston did: ( subs are in CAPS )3rd quarter starters: Teague - Williams - Korver - Smith - Horford . . ( - 12 for the quarter )4:49 mark lineup: Teague - Williams - STEVENSON - Smith - Horford . . ( -4 )3:18 mark lineup: Teague - Williams - Stevenson - Smith - ZAZA ( -2 )1:54 mark lineup: Williams - Stevenson - Smith - TOLLIVER - Zaza ( -4 )1:02 mark lineup: Williams - Stevenson - Tolliver - HORFORD - Zaza ( -2 )So you didn't want the team to play SOFT, but you didn't even try to go to a semi-big lineup until the 1:54 mark? And when you DID do it, you bring in Anthony Tolliver? Not even going to ask why the team's toughest and scariest player was just chewing gum on the bench and not even getting a chance to impact the game at this time. And when you DID decide to put him in the game, he starts to make things happen, but the Hawks were in too much of a hole.Yeah Drew, the Hawks are SOFT. And they already have that label. Your starting center DEFINITELY played soft last night. But you expect SOFT players to play with toughness? It doesn't work that way man. Tough guys are tough guys for a reason. And they only know how to play one way.Stat of the night for you Larry.Out of 95 offensive play types charted by Synergy, do you know how many official post up plays the Hawks had?THREE3 out of 95 Larry. And two of those didn't come until midway through the 4th quarter.Meanwhile we had 29 out of 95 plays that were spot up jumpers ( 30.5% of the plays ). Our shooting % on those jumpers?20.8% . . ( 5 - 24 FG ) . . . with 20 of those shots being 3 pointers ( made 5 of them )We missed 7 of these types of shots in the 3rd quarter alone, and made just 1 - 11 in the 2nd half. Josh Smith had 5 of the misses via spot ups ( 4 actual jumpers and 1 driving layup . . 2 turnovers also ), and had the only make ( the 3 pointer that brought the Hawks within 6 in the 4th quarter )That is on YOU Larry.The Hawks are 28th in the league in FT attempts and 29th in FT makes.We are 26th in offensive rebounding and 27th in total rebounding.That is on YOU Larry.Why? Because you continue to keep the two guys on the bench who could help you in both areas.Zaza Pachulia and Ivan Johnson.They're easily the toughest guys on the team, and the best rebounding big men you have ( from a Rebound % standpoint ). You call your team SOFT, but leave the TOUGH GUYS on the bench? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.Bottom line is this. If you're not going to reign in Josh Smith from taking a ton of outside shots and acting like he's an elite scorer, you may as well play him at SF for significant stretches, let him fire away, and play guys at PF who will REBOUND THE DANG BASKETBALL when he misses shots.Stop calling the team SOFT, if you put the softest lineups possible out on the floor. And tell your All-Star center to star to be a LEADER on this team, and take matters into his own hands.

Baller, the team is STILL out of balance. That's why this keeps happening vs certain teams.There is no "cultural phenomenon" going on here.Before the season started, we all agreed that whenever we played a star or superstar SG or SF, we may be in trouble. Combine that with the SOFTNESS of this team overall, and we'll still see schizophrenic performances from the Hawks.

Great question one of those hosts are asking.Are the Hawks the 3rd best team in the league, if- Derrick Rose was healthy in Chicago?- Danny Granger was healthy in Indy?- and Andrew Bynum was healthy in Philly?One of the things they refuse to admit though, is that the team might just be better WITHOUT Josh, if you bring in the right combination of guys in here.If that rings true about the guys we got to replace Joe and Marvin, the same rings true for Josh.

Listening to them right now http://betaplayer.radio.com/player/929-the-game Matter of fact, I'm bookmarking this link.

According to hoopsstats.com, here are how the Hawks rank in NBA Efficiency Differential at each positionPG - 23rdSG - 7thSF - 24thPF - 13thC - 2ndTake that how you want it.

Here you go http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/13/8/diffeff/1-1

LOL . . . I know right?