POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?

[Celtics4ever]

Not interested in him.  Inefficient, a talent tease and oft ineffective player.

[fairweatherfan]

I'm not as down on Smith as a lot of people are, but I'd feel a lot better about him here if Oly/Sully were capable of being full-time centers.  Smith's lack of outside shooting is best complemented by a C with legit range, and we just have 4s with range who do pretty bad C impersonations.

[kozlodoev]

Are those opposed to Smith also opposed to retaining Rondo and Green? If so then I understand not wanting Smith. If you want Rondo and Green you have to consider this. How else can we get talent this good and cheap via trade that is under control? No team is trading a top ten player. Smith is likely the best talent for the cheapest price in trade and contract $ available. If you want to keep Rondo and Green it will cost you at least 26 million in the cap. Aside of them there is 35 million in other roster players for next year without the pick cost. If we retain Rondo and Green there will be no cap to sign a impact FA. Pulling trigger on this is about keeping Rondo and Green for me.

This is not baseball. Getting superior talent is infinitely more important than getting someone "good and cheap ... that is under control".

I completely disagree with all of that. Baseball has a soft cap and can spend as much as they can afford they should always go for elite talents as much as budget allows. Basketball has a signing cap we have to work with-in the cap system to acquire talent.

Basketball also has a soft cap, for what it's worth.

The problem is that contract negotiation in baseball allows you to pay chump change to top players pretty much throughout their prime, which results in the necessity to massively overpay for their years of decline. Between the management of options, arbitration eligibility and the need to maintain a massive roster, team control is much more important.

By contract, how good your best player in basketball is massively more important for the outcome of every single game.  Not only is he likely on the floor for ~80% of playing time every game, but he's also one of just five guys on the floor. Sure, it's always better to pay less rather than more, but a team with 5 Jeff Greens will probably be worse than a team with 1 LeBron James about 99% of the time.

[Csfan1984]

Are those opposed to Smith also opposed to retaining Rondo and Green? If so then I understand not wanting Smith. If you want Rondo and Green you have to consider this. How else can we get talent this good and cheap via trade that is under control? No team is trading a top ten player. Smith is likely the best talent for the cheapest price in trade and contract $ available. If you want to keep Rondo and Green it will cost you at least 26 million in the cap. Aside of them there is 35 million in other roster players for next year without the pick cost. If we retain Rondo and Green there will be no cap to sign a impact FA. Pulling trigger on this is about keeping Rondo and Green for me.

This is not baseball. Getting superior talent is infinitely more important than getting someone "good and cheap ... that is under control".

I completely disagree with all of that. Baseball has a soft cap and can spend as much as they can afford they should always go for elite talents as much as budget allows. Basketball has a signing cap we have to work with-in the cap system to acquire talent.

Basketball also has a soft cap, for what it's worth.

The problem is that contract negotiation in baseball allows you to pay chump change to top players pretty much throughout their prime, which results in the necessity to massively overpay for their years of decline. Between the management of options, arbitration eligibility and the need to maintain a massive roster, team control is much more important.

By contract, how good your best player in basketball is massively more important for the outcome of every single game.  Not only is he likely on the floor for ~80% of playing time every game, but he's also one of just five guys on the floor. Sure, it's always better to pay less rather than more, but a team with 5 Jeff Greens will probably be worse than a team with 1 LeBron James about 99% of the time.

Still you can not acquire the talent the same way. The sports are completely different. I'd love a top player but if we are keeping Rondo and Green it's not going to happen via FA because of cap. And again no one is trading top 10 talent in the foreseeable future. This is a way to get good talent buying low. 

[LooseCannon]

No team should give up a first for Josh Smith.  Any team should be asking for at least one first as compensation for taking on his contract.

Not when you shipping out Gerald Wallace's (almost) equally horrible contract. That first is the only real consideration offered.

I'd be more curious whether something can be worked around Wallace + Bass.

I'd rather keep Wallace/Bass.

[csfansince60s]

No team should give up a first for Josh Smith.  Any team should be asking for at least one first as compensation for taking on his contract.

Not when you shipping out Gerald Wallace's (almost) equally horrible contract. That first is the only real consideration offered.

I'd be more curious whether something can be worked around Wallace + Bass.

I agree.

In the OP, I suggested GWall, Bass and a weak pick. Given how badly things have devolved for the Pistons since then, we'd be doing them a $13 million dollar favor with that deal and solving internal issues with the team by removing someone detrimental to their team chemistry.

I would now want KCP included in the trade.

New trade proposal: GWall, Bass, weak pick for Smith and KCP.

KCP is far better than a weak pick and will be the price they have to pay for us taking Smith and saving the $13 mil.

[kozlodoev]

Still you can not acquire the talent the same way. The sports are completely different. I'd love a top player but if we are keeping Rondo and Green it's not going to happen via FA because of cap. And again no one is trading top 10 talent in the foreseeable future. This is a way to get good talent buying low.

Ainge will let go and/or trade anyone if that'd net him a top player. Clogging your roster with "decent" players that are "under team control" (a.k.a. are eating cap space for years and years with no easy way out for the team) is a serious recipe for disaster.

And the main reason why "under team control" means something in baseball and not so much in basketball is because arbitration eligibility actually allows you the OPTION to retain a player at some sort of reasonable cost, instead of saddling your payroll with a non-voidable obligation.

I'd love the option to have Rondo, Green, and Smith on a year-to-year basis at league-mediated salary levels for 6 years, but sadly that's not how the NBA works.

[Csfan1984]

Still you can not acquire the talent the same way. The sports are completely different. I'd love a top player but if we are keeping Rondo and Green it's not going to happen via FA because of cap. And again no one is trading top 10 talent in the foreseeable future. This is a way to get good talent buying low.

Ainge will let go and/or trade anyone if that'd net him a top player. Clogging your roster with "decent" players that are "under team control" (a.k.a. are eating cap space for years and years with no easy way out for the team) is a serious recipe for disaster.

And the main reason why "under team control" means something in baseball and not so much in basketball is because arbitration eligibility actually allows you the OPTION to retain a player at some sort of reasonable cost, instead of saddling your payroll with a non-voidable obligation.

I'd love the option to have Rondo, Green, and Smith on a year-to-year basis at league-mediated salary levels for 6 years, but sadly that's not how the NBA works.

It is not Clogging. Smith a better chip than Wallace, Fav and a low first. Only one more year on books than Wallace and Fav. And in a year C's would increase his stock. At which time he will be a good trade asset for DA if a top 10 guy does come on the block.

[PickNRoll]

Still you can not acquire the talent the same way. The sports are completely different. I'd love a top player but if we are keeping Rondo and Green it's not going to happen via FA because of cap. And again no one is trading top 10 talent in the foreseeable future. This is a way to get good talent buying low.

Ainge will let go and/or trade anyone if that'd net him a top player. Clogging your roster with "decent" players that are "under team control" (a.k.a. are eating cap space for years and years with no easy way out for the team) is a serious recipe for disaster.

And the main reason why "under team control" means something in baseball and not so much in basketball is because arbitration eligibility actually allows you the OPTION to retain a player at some sort of reasonable cost, instead of saddling your payroll with a non-voidable obligation.

I'd love the option to have Rondo, Green, and Smith on a year-to-year basis at league-mediated salary levels for 6 years, but sadly that's not how the NBA works.

It is not Clogging. Smith a better chip than Wallace, Fav and a low first. Only one more year on books than Wallace and Fav. And in a year C's would increase his stock. At which time he will be a good trade asset for DA if a top 10 guy does come on the block.

Smith basically has NO basketball value at this point.  He's measured only by the negative value of his contract.  Detroit will definitely have to bundle assets to get rid of him.  I wouldn't call him a "chip" at all.

[Neurotic Guy]

I wouldn't want him unless I was looking at a bench role and had a savvy, strong veteran team.  He has some talent but it needs to be harnessed.  Play D and board, and take only what's given to you close to the basket. 

[Jonny CC]

No team should give up a first for Josh Smith.  Any team should be asking for at least one first as compensation for taking on his contract.

Not when you shipping out Gerald Wallace's (almost) equally horrible contract. That first is the only real consideration offered.

I'd be more curious whether something can be worked around Wallace + Bass.

I'd rather keep Wallace/Bass.

Why?

[oldtype]

For free? Maybe.

[SHAQATTACK]

NO


Please NO

[LooseCannon]

No team should give up a first for Josh Smith.  Any team should be asking for at least one first as compensation for taking on his contract.

Not when you shipping out Gerald Wallace's (almost) equally horrible contract. That first is the only real consideration offered.

I'd be more curious whether something can be worked around Wallace + Bass.

I'd rather keep Wallace/Bass.

Why?

Because I don't want Smith at all.  Wallace/Bass for Smith and two firsts, I'd consider.

[csfansince60s]

No team should give up a first for Josh Smith.  Any team should be asking for at least one first as compensation for taking on his contract.

Not when you shipping out Gerald Wallace's (almost) equally horrible contract. That first is the only real consideration offered.

I'd be more curious whether something can be worked around Wallace + Bass.

I'd rather keep Wallace/Bass.

Why?

Because I don't want Smith at all.  Wallace/Bass for Smith and two firsts, I'd consider.

What about KCP with Smith. He's a first.