Bargnani and Sene

[DrReality]

The Lue for Rondo trade is a no brainer. Pulling that off would be a shot in the arm. One way or the other the Hawks have to get a pg, either through the draft and/or FA.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

But do the Hawks plan on making a playoff push next year anyway?

---

We had better hope so because we're well into rebuilding, our pick is going to pheonix, and the following year we have to start resigning young talent (less likely to resign if we continue to lose at near this rate).

Quote:

---

Bargnani at worst would be a better scorer than Zaza Pachulia. At best, he could be an NBA all-star.

That draft would never happen. First of all, Sene is a 1st round pick especially after he does his workouts if anyone is bold enough to challenge him.

---

Agree on all accounts although Barg's game is very different from ZaZa's and I cannot imagine a scenario where Bargnani wouldn't surpass ZaZa quickly and never look back.

W

[BusBoyIsBack]

Quote:

---

Drafting Bargnani means Smoove or Marvin pretty much has to be traded to fill the gaps in the roster at the point and center positions.

---

No it could just mean the end of Al Harrington. Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, and Bargnani could all co-exist in our frontcourt. Zaza would be nice size off the bench.

[Packfill]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Drafting Bargnani means Smoove or Marvin pretty much has to be traded to fill the gaps in the roster at the point and center positions.

---

No it could just mean the end of Al Harrington. Josh Smith, Marvin Williams, and Bargnani could all co-exist in our frontcourt. Zaza would be nice size off the bench.

---

You could do that but why? Two of the three would not be playing in their optimal positions and there still is no real interior defense outside of Josh Smith's shotblocking. From the videoclips and photos I have seen Bargnani is very skinny and would not offer much more in the way of defense then Zaza.

[Lascar78]

Bargnani has a reputation as a very good interior shotblocker, and a relatively poor perimeter defender. He definitely wants to be on the interior challenging shots. He's thin, but that doesn't stop Pau.

[Packfill]

That is fine, but he is still not a center (and is likely two plus years away from filling out enough to play center), so he would need to play power forward leaving Josh Smith or Marvin on the bench.

It just presents a bit of a problem.

[Lascar78]

well he's probably not ready to start at C, but he could be ready to play some minutes at C. I saw Smith and even harrington play some minutes at the C this year and do surprisingly well. Chill-Marvin-Smith-Bargnani-Zaza would be 5 guys for 3 positions. A bit of a crunch, but the bottom line is we need more size. We need more size, and he's a 7 footer who can block shots well and take his man off the dribble. No matter what, if we get a big, either some of our young talent will come off the bench or someone is traded at some point. I don't see a problem with having

Marvin/Childress

Smith/Bargnani

Zaza

at the 3-4-5 (change who starts depending on who's best). If in a year or two we see who really develops and who doesn't we can trade appropriately. I don't think you HAVE to draft an entire team without trading.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

well he's probably not ready to start at C, but he could be ready to play some minutes at C.

---

Who, Bargnani? The guy is at his biggest a POWER FORWARD! Playing a Pf AT BEST prospect "some minutes" at C is a crock of a suggestion and simply laughable when you consider you want a Sf as your Pf. Team's would laugh at your idea of a frontline.

Quote:

---

I saw Smith and even harrington play some minutes at the C this year and do surprisingly well.

---

That's simply a lame comment. You know if we played Childress at C I would consider survival his doing "surprisingly well". Whatever "suprisingly well means it's meaningless. P.S. Why would you want to risk injury to everyone by playing them out of position?

Quote:

---

Chill-Marvin-Smith-Bargnani-Zaza would be 5 guys for 3 positions. A bit of a crunch, but the bottom line is we need more size.

---

That's #2, likely #4, #6, and #17 (but worth far more) picks (equivalent) and a top young C prospect for 3 positions, most of whom you choose to play OUT OF POSITION! Now if THAT isn't a problem I don't know what is.

Quote:

---

We need more size, and he's a 7 footer who can block shots well and take his man off the dribble.

---

Exactly, so play Bargnani at Pf and oops, theres that nasty problem of having to bench MW or JS that you can't or are unwilling to address.

Quote:

---

No matter what, if we get a big, either some of our young talent will come off the bench or someone is traded at some point.

---

So, since nobody here would agree to bench MW, JS, or say Bargnani for any length of time and doing so would signifiacntly diminish anyone of their value and since you suggest the only other option is to trade one of them at "some point", why are you against trading one of them now, when we will have the most cap, FA trading (Al), and draft flexibility for the foreseeable future and insist we remain in rebuilding pergatory, waiting on the day we know will come when we have to trade someone for less because we benched them or their "potential" label is diminished?

Quote:

---

at the 3-4-5 (change who starts depending on who's best). If in a year or two we see who really develops and who doesn't we can trade appropriately. I don't think you HAVE to draft an entire team without trading.

---

In a year we have no draft pick or FA to combine them with and less cap space to make any move viable. In two we are focused upon resigning existing young talent with less cap space. NOW is the time. This is the most flexible we'll be for years and if we don't make serious moves now we risk alienating our young talent by playing them out of position in some cases well out of position, too little or in a less desirable role, and on a losing team without the size and interior skill to compete.

It's never the safe move to make moves when you don't have all the answers. Yes, it's possible MW will get it all together and be better than JS will, but he has NEVER been remotely as good as Josh so to think that goes against ALL EVIDENCE. Of all the players he is the most redundant, most valuable in trade, and least harmful to the team if we trade him. TRADE HIM! Therefore, you don't have to worry about you top tier of talent being benched, all your young talent playing out of position at 2-3 positions. Novel idea? Skim off the excess and make room for success.

W

[Lascar78]

Quote:

---

Who, Bargnani? The guy is at his biggest a POWER FORWARD! Playing a Pf AT BEST prospect "some minutes" at C is a crock of a suggestion and simply laughable when you consider you want a Sf as your Pf. Team's would laugh at your idea of a frontline.

---

I think Bargnani will be a 7 ft PF. There is no way in hell he can guard any SF's in the NBA. He will be a 7 ft PF who can probably play some center. Phoenix won 54+ games with Marion and Diaw splitting most of the center minutes after Thomas went down. Bargnani will be a much better post defender than either of them.

Quote:

---

That's simply a lame comment. You know if we played Childress at C I would consider survival his doing "surprisingly well". Whatever "suprisingly well means it's meaningless. P.S. Why would you want to risk injury to everyone by playing them out of position?

---

Not sure what Chill has to do with this, not sure why changing positions makes you more injury prone. Smith was able to guard centers well, challenge shots, hold his own, and take them off the dribble on offense. Perhaps you're completely unable to evaluate a players' performance without stats, I'm not. Harrington and Smith did well playing at the C. They were not dominated because of being shorter.

Quote:

---

That's #2, likely #4, #6, and #17 (but worth far more) picks (equivalent) and a top young C prospect for 3 positions, most of whom you choose to play OUT OF POSITION! Now if THAT isn't a problem I don't know what is.

---

Then you must not know what a problem is. Depth is not a problem, it's a luxury. If the 3-4-5 has depth, we have a borderline all-star at the 2, then we are a PG away from being really really good. Chill is a SF, Marvin and Smith are SF/PF's, Bargnani is a PF, and Zaza is a PF/C. None of them would be out of position.

Quote:

---

So, since nobody here would agree to bench MW, JS, or say Bargnani for any length of time and doing so would signifiacntly diminish anyone of their value

---

Name these mysterious people who are against anyone coming off the bench. I have no problem with MW, JS, or Bargnani coming off the bench. It does not diminish their value either as long as they get minutes. 3 guys for 5 spots is about 29 minutes apiece. Childress averaged 30 this past season for comparison.

Quote:

---

why are you against trading one of them now, when we will have the most cap, FA trading (Al), and draft flexibility for the foreseeable future and insist we remain in rebuilding pergatory, waiting on the day we know will come when we have to trade someone for less because we benched them or their "potential" label is diminished?

---

There is no need to trade one now. Whether we trade one or not we still need big PF/C's or a PG, so it doesn't effect what we're going for through the draft or free agency. It would be foolish to trade one of the guys we drafted in the past 2 years before seeing HOW GOOD THEY BECOME. Smith was a little better than Marvin in his 2nd year, Marvin appears to have more potential. We don't know which one will develop the most, we don't know which one, if either, will develop into a PF. There is no reason to play the guessing game and ship the one you guess will be worst, when you can let them play and develop, and trade one (of all our young guys), if it makes sense.

Quote:

---

In a year we have no draft pick or FA to combine them with and less cap space to make any move viable. In two we are focused upon resigning existing young talent with less cap space. NOW is the time.... bla bla bla

---

Trade one or not, we need big PF/C's and a PG. Trading one does not change that. We have flexibility to sign people now, yes. So we need to try to sign bigs and PG's, and draft them too. How would trading one change any of that? We can do our best to sign PGs and bigs, and in a year or two IF it appears that they both are that good and can't co-exist, we can trade one to acquire a piece that truly fits. If you don't know yet what their game will develop into, whatever you trade them for now might not even fit in 2 years. I'm fine with trading if there's a problem. There is no known problem at this point, just a potential one in the future

How many months in a row are you going to post the same argument? Isn't it clear that everyone has already answered all these questions, and that no one agrees with you but Diesel? Isn't it even more clear than that that BK will not be trading either of these guys unless a superstar package were to come up? What is the point of this?

[chillzatl]

Quote:

---

How many months in a row are you going to post the same argument? Isn't it clear that everyone has already answered all these questions, and that no one agrees with you but Diesel? Isn't it even more clear than that that BK will not be trading either of these guys unless a superstar package were to come up? What is the point of this?

---

I think Diesel agrees with him that Marvin is redundant and possibly that he won't be as good as some of us think he will be. I'm not so sure he agree's that Marvin should or needs to be traded RIGHT NOW.

And hell yess about they constant repost of the same argument. It's not going to change anything and BK isn't going to do it. So why keep churning it up? You want to talk about redundant.. his posts on the subject are far more redundant than Marvin and Josh's skillsets.

[Final_quest]

At least Diesel talks about other things. Walter is as one dimensional as Manute Bol before he started shooting 3's.

Let it go, wait until after the draft or free agency to knit pick about our roster.