If you had to choose: Horford or Smith

[Zone034life]

Quote:

---

This was tough.

Josh has been in the league a few years and has developed pretty well, though he still has a few holes in his game. He is also a tweener that gives flexibility, but probably could not play full-time at either PF or SF. That withstanding he is a homer, has flash, is better marketing material and he can change a game on both ends of the court. If he had a reliable shot, this would be easy. I sometimes question his decision making.

Horford is a good, big man which is pretty hard to find at the NBA level. He has a high bb iq, is a true PF that can play pt at C. I believe that with the same years in the NBA as Josh, he will be one of "the" dominant PFs in the league. He has heart, skill and a winning attitude. He is also cheaper right now.

I went with Al, because I think he will eventually get us more wins with his inside game. Also, I believe a team should have a better shooter at the sf position than what Josh has shown thus far.

Thats a good breakdown of both players. Now doesn't it make you feel better thinking both will be on this team in the future. I think the Marvin vs. Chillz arguement is a more valid one. Horford and Smoove has earned more of a right to be definite members of this team next season than Marvin or chillz.

[Swish]

I'm telling you guys; Smoove is going to be an NBA icon for years. Just wait! Horf is hella good; but Smoove, to borrow a phrase, has no ceiling that I can see. The attitude is the only problem.

[Admin]

It's not about who has earned a right to be here, it's about what the best fit for the team is positionally and financially going forward. You have to decide whether Horford fits better as 4 or a 5. If you determine that his bet fit as at the 4 then you either have to move him or Josh Smith. You also have to decide if Smith is a better 3 or a 4. Obviously if the decision is that both Horford and Smith are better at the 4 then it makes sense to move one of them to fill another hole. Childress is a bit redundant in that he is a better 3 than anything else but he's not a starter and will cost a lot less than Smith, Marvin, or Horford so you can justify keeping someone with his production level at his cost to be the 6th man. Marvin really doesn't have any competition for the 3, so again it comes down to Horford and Smith. Unless our decision is that Horford is a better fit at the 5 I really don't see both he and Smith being here long term.

[coachx]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would take Horford simply for the real world reason that we would then have $11 mill to spend on other players.

Horford + $11 mill to spend > Smith + $5 mill to spend

No need in playing the "what if game" What if they made the same amout of money ? They don't make the same amount of money at this time in their careers so why even bother ?

When you say 11M on other are you talking about money spent on Marvin and JJ that we would not spend if we signed Smith? I am not sure what that $11M represents in your mind. I guess I don't see us spending much on other players if we resign Chills regardless of whether we sign Smith.

If we step out of reality where there is no luxury tax and money grows on trees..........then I would take Smith over Horford all day.

However, I was just working in reality where Smith would take around $11 mill to keep while Horford is locked up for $5 - $8 mill for the next 3 years.

In that scenerio (If I could only keep one)....I would let Smith walk and offer Okefor or another FA big the $$$.

However, I would choose to keep Smith as Plan A ,all day long. I was just answering a thread question.

[AnakinJoe]

Quote:

---

I'm telling you guys; Smoove is going to be an NBA icon for years. Just wait! Horf is hella good; but Smoove, to borrow a phrase, has no ceiling that I can see. The attitude is the only problem.

Just out of curiosity, who do you define as an NBA icon? And did any of those guys need 300 NBA games to reach that lofty level? 10,000 minutes of game time is a helluva learning curve to reach icon status, isn't it?

[ATLBob]

Quote:

---

Unless our decision is that Horford is a better fit at the 5 I really don't see both he and Smith being here long term.

Unless we can get a dynamic 5 (highly unlikely), then keeping both makes the most sense. Making the most out of such a situation would require starting Horford at the 5, adding an effective banger to the rotation, and wise coaching (I know). One of the two should be on the floor at PF at all (read: most) times.

The other option would be an explosive 3 with range. Again, this doesn't fix the C dilemmna.

[Swish]

NBA icon would be probably a bad term to use on this board. I'm talking jersey sales, ticket boom, the "face" of the current NBA (2004 [LBJ, Wade, etc]-201-). Today's icons are LeBron, Kobe, Wade, KG.

Real icons obviously Magic, MJ, Bird...

[Joker]

Quote:

---

NBA icon would be probably a bad term to use on this board. I'm talking jersey sales, ticket boom, the "face" of the current NBA (2004 [LBJ, Wade, etc]-201-). Today's icons are LeBron, Kobe, Wade, KG.

Real icons obviously Magic, MJ, Bird...

lol, Josh Smith isn't that icon or even close, that Atlanta icon is in jail right now.

[ATLBob]

Remember, we have Horford signed for a long time. His current contract expires before the 2012/13 season, correct?

RFA 2011/12?

We definitely don't need to move one of them unless that move makes our team definitively better

[Admin]

In my opinion the only logical reason to keep them both is if you believe that you can win with an Al Horford / Josh Smith 4-5 combo. The money should be a very small consideration as winning is the bottom line. If you can win with those two guys playing the 4-5 then you keep them. If not, then you decide which one to move.

[foeteen14]

I keep josh right now. Horford would have to double his scoring, blocks, assist, and steals. to put up the numbers josh puts up now, and they're the same age. Smith only has to get 2 more rebounds a game to be far more superior than al in every statistical category.

[BusBoyIsBack]

We shouldn't HAVE to choose. They both should be in our future plans.

But if I had to, Im taking Smoove hands down. Josh Smith is the most untouchable player on this team outside of Captain Joe because of his upside.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would take Horford simply for the real world reason that we would then have $11 mill to spend on other players.

Horford + $11 mill to spend > Smith + $5 mill to spend

No need in playing the "what if game" What if they made the same amout of money ? They don't make the same amount of money at this time in their careers so why even bother ?

When you say 11M on other are you talking about money spent on Marvin and JJ that we would not spend if we signed Smith? I am not sure what that $11M represents in your mind. I guess I don't see us spending much on other players if we resign Chills regardless of whether we sign Smith.

If we step out of reality where there is no luxury tax and money grows on trees..........then I would take Smith over Horford all day.

However, I was just working in reality where Smith would take around $11 mill to keep while Horford is locked up for $5 - $8 mill for the next 3 years.

In that scenerio (If I could only keep one)....I would let Smith walk and offer Okefor or another FA big the $$$.

However, I would choose to keep Smith as Plan A ,all day long. I was just answering a thread question.

There is nothing wrong with your answer but we are only 2-3M under cap even if we renounce both Josh Smith and Josh Childress. That means we can't give big $$$ to any not already on our team. The best we can offer is the MLE. Going with Horford would definitely save money, but I don't think there is any way it would translate into a big FA like Okafor.

[coachx]

I obviously know little about the FA rules. I thought we could spend as much as wanted (up to the luxury tax hold) for both our own RFA and other teams RFA as well.

I did not realize we can only go over the cap for our own RFA.

Seeing true reality now, my original statements were far off base.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

I obviously know little about the FA rules. I thought we could spend as much as wanted (up to the luxury tax hold) for both our own RFA and other teams RFA as well.

I did not realize we can only go over the cap for our own RFA.

Seeing true reality now, my original statements were far off base.

The good news is that this is why there are so few teams that can make a real play for Josh Smith. Unless teams are under the cap, they can't really put any pressure on the Hawks because they can't even sign Smith to a contract we wouldn't match in a second.

[crimedog]

Quote:

---

In my opinion the only logical reason to keep them both is if you believe that you can win with an Al Horford / Josh Smith 4-5 combo. The money should be a very small consideration as winning is the bottom line. If you can win with those two guys playing the 4-5 then you keep them. If not, then you decide which one to move.

I'd flip that around and say "the only logical reason NOT to keep both of them is if you believe you CAN'T win with an Al Horford/Josh Smith 4-5 combo."

Look, you can go back through the history of the NBA and find a few consistencies in title winning teams. The biggest consistency is the teams with the most talent usually win. The second biggest consistency is the team with the best player usually wins. There is no consistency that says that every title team needs to have some standardized notion of "balance" if it is going to win. Yes, having a dominant low post center has led to success for the Spurs (Duncan), Lakers (Shaq), and Rockets (Hakeem) but trading Smith for Chris Kaman doesn't approximate what those cats give you.

You trade Horford/Smith if you think you have a more talented team afterwards.

Now, in the hypothetical that I somehow HAD to trade one of them for some reason I'd probably trade Horford. I think his value is as high as its ever going to be because he hasn't been playing long enough for his flaws to show (untested as a stopper on D or go-to weapon on offense) and he's on the second year of his rookie deal instead of going into FA.

As players, Smith has a much bigger impact on defense and he creates a lot of shots for both himself and his teamates of offense whereas Horford is too tentative to be a creator and was therefore mainly just a finisher this season.

Don't get me wrong, Horford could certainly improve rapidly and eclipse Smith in a season or two but its not something that I would take for granted because "he's a winner" or something like that.

I think both should stay on this team unless someone comes and blows us away with an offer but neither the numbers nor visual observation tells me that Horford contributes more to this team today and neither tells me that he has any more upside than Smith left to explore.

[Admin]

You are asking the same question. Either you can or cannot win with that combo.

You think this is as high as Horfords value is ever going to be? Seriously? The guy got better and better as the year went on and even if we traded him right now we would be extremely limited in the players we could take back unless we started including other players.

Sure Josh Smith makes more exciting plays, but Horford is already a better defensive player. Smith is an average at best man defender and constantly gets beaten off the dribble because he tries to block the shot from behind. Horford doesn't have nearly the shot blocking ability that Smith has but he is light years better fundamentally and I'd even say the same thing on offense. He puts himself in a position to succeed, unlike Smith who too often floats around the 3pt line where he shouldn't be.

They are both very talented players and we might be better off with them as our 4/5 combo, or we might not. It appears that more people here believe Smith should be the one that we trade.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

64% for Horford after 48 votes. That is truly shocking to me. I think Horford's consistency in the playoffs had a lot to do with this vote. It was feast or famine with Smith, while Horford, for the most part, was steady in the playoffs.

Losing Smith, to me, is only an option if we can replace him with a big who can board, rebound, block shots, and score at a decent clip ( Okafor ) . . or a big that is an offensive offensive demon in the low and/or high posts, that can also do most of the things that Smith does ( Brand ).

Smith is too important to this team defensively to just let slip away without someone significant taking his place. This team would miss his shot blocking prescence tremendously, if we didn't bring in a guy to replace that skill he brought to every game.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

We can definitely win with a Horford/Smith combo. If the both become tougher and smarter, both could be very successful.

It's funny though. Phoenix fans would probably KILL to have the Amare/Marion combo back, instead of the Shaq/Amare combo.

If Smith had Marion's toughness, this whole contract issue would be a no-brainer.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

Quote:

---

I'm telling you guys; Smoove is going to be an NBA icon for years. Just wait! Horf is hella good; but Smoove, to borrow a phrase, has no ceiling that I can see. The attitude is the only problem.

No, the jump shot is the problem. His emotional outburst is because of his competitive nature.