Josh Smith available

[D.o.s.]

http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=kqttsa6

Smith and Villanueva
For
Wallace green and bass

Another one that works (although I'm not enamored with the idea of Josh Smith):

Wallace, Green, Bass + Humphries for
Smith, Charlie V., and Rodney Stuckey.

Throw in draft picks as appropriate.

[sofutomygaha]

A couple of thoughts

1. Josh Smith has probably already peaked as a player. His future is brighter than the terrible year that he is having, and probably better than the career-worst year he had last year, but he's not going to be the shot-blocking do-everything super athlete he was with the Hawks in his early-mid twenties. The present terribleness of his offense also suggests that he isn't going to transition from a physical freak into a super-smart, efficient player like, say, Garnett did.

If we brought him on, he ought to be a 5-6 win player, which is worth Jeff Green's money.

2. I don't know how to build a winner around Rondo and Smith- two excellent ball handlers, penetrators, and passers who can nonetheless be either dared to shoot or fouled mercilessly depending on their proximity to the basket. I do know that if you add even one more player to that starting five who can't hit an open shot, you're screwed (Rondo's promising re-invention as a midrange shooter notwithstanding).

If you could build an ideal team around the Rondo-Smith connection, it would have to include a center who can play decent interior defense, can shoot, and doesn't clog the paint (sorry, Al Jefferson. You'd need a Garnett-Bosh-Aldridge-Horford type). Then you'd need two wings with catch-and-shoot skills.

Basically, Smith would have fit beautifully at the four with the pre-trade Celtics sporting Garnett at center and Pierce on the wing, or he'd fit in great with the Atlanta Hawks. Go figure.

[BballTim]

A couple of thoughts

1. Josh Smith has probably already peaked as a player. His future is brighter than the terrible year that he is having, and probably better than the career-worst year he had last year, but he's not going to be the shot-blocking do-everything super athlete he was with the Hawks in his early-mid twenties. The present terribleness of his offense also suggests that he isn't going to transition from a physical freak into a super-smart, efficient player like, say, Garnett did.

If we brought him on, he ought to be a 5-6 win player, which is worth Jeff Green's money.

2. I don't know how to build a winner around Rondo and Smith- two excellent ball handlers, penetrators, and passers who can nonetheless be either dared to shoot or fouled mercilessly depending on their proximity to the basket. I do know that if you add even one more player to that starting five who can't hit an open shot, you're screwed (Rondo's promising re-invention as a midrange shooter notwithstanding).

  I don't think things would be as bad as you think. Rondo can generally get into the lane when he wants to and Smith is a great finisher near the basket. Decent shooting wings would provide enough spacing. Also, teams won't foul Rondo mercilessly, just like they haven't thus far in his career. He's too good a free throw shooter, so is Smith. They aren't Shaq or Howard or Dandre Jordan.

[LooseCannon]

You don't try to make Smith a stretch forward. You need to have him in the paint where he belongs. Yes he can hit the mid range jumper, but anything further than 18 feet is a no-no.

Either way Josh Smith in my opinion has always been underrated. He's a skilled big men who is althetic, can defend, can pass, and has been questioned many times for his basketball IQ, but the problem with that is... Josh Smith on the Hawks cannot be your go to guy... He's an perennial All-Star, but not a superstar. They keep treating him like he is though. And unfortunately that is their big problem.

I don't think the problem is that the Hawks were forcing Smith to be a go-to guy, I think the problem is that he wants that role and he left the Hawks in search of a place where he could try to be the player he wants to be.

If you've ever watched Hawks games, then you'd see that majority of the shots in 4th quarter were usually by Johnson or Smith. But Smith had a higher USG rate.

Plus you gotta to take into account, besides the Cavs, and a few select franchises like Kings. The Hawks have a terrible organization, and until 2007 managed to make the playoffs with a losing record of 37-45! They haven't been in the playoffs for 8 years, making terrible draft decisions, making odd weird mid-season trades, until they tried to wise by compiling a successful roster, but crippled themselves by giving Johnson the most absurd contract next to Arenas.

Also the Hawks fans are terrible. Have you've seen a few games of the Hawks? Even when Smith does well, they seem to boo him each and every time. Josh Smith has commented on how loud and proud we Celtics fan are, and he's stated in a post game how jealous he is of the support the Celtics fans give their players.

I don't know whether or not Smith wants to be considered a superstar. I remember he wanted to be paid like one. But I mean... he's been on a good bargain contracts for the past few years, and has been consistent. Worse case, he sucks, but manages to maintain good defense on our team, and hit the mid range, then the Rockets might want him, and slot T-Jones as their back up PF.

Like I said a combo of Smith/Rondo would be fun to watch, and I have no doubt in my mind this would help in terms of FA wanting to play here.

Smith has been the only FA that has actually wanted to play in Boston, since David West who as you know, kicked us to the curb. A smart and wise decision, but having someone like West during the Big 3 Era would've been great.

The rumor was that Smith was tired of getting criticized by fans, coaches, and the media in Atlanta and wanted to go somewhere where they wouldn't criticize his shot selection.

The way he plays makes me believe that rumor has some truth to it.  If the rumor is true, I don't want Josh Smith around.

[BballTim]

You don't try to make Smith a stretch forward. You need to have him in the paint where he belongs. Yes he can hit the mid range jumper, but anything further than 18 feet is a no-no.

  There's the rub though. I don't think anyone in Atlanta was trying to make Smith a stretch forward, I think that was his doing. That's the biggest concern with trading for him.

[kozlodoev]

I'll agree that Smith has the longer track record, but I'll agree to disagree that Smith is a vastly superior player. In fact, I don't think he is superior at all right now. I'll take Sullinger now and I definitely expect Sullinger to take another leap or two over the next 2 seasons.

There season to date comparisons:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=sullija01&y1=2014&p2=smithjo03&y2=2014

So in his worst season to date, Smith is more or less comparable to Sullinger. Ok then.

  His worst seasons were probably when he was as inexperienced as Sully is, and he saw a predictable improvement over the next couple of years. You'd also have to consider that his production has been dropping over time.

His shot blocking has declined. Other than that, he's been a very consistent 16-18 points, 8-10 rebound per 36 over his career -- as long as he's not being asked to play SF.

[BballTim]

I'll agree that Smith has the longer track record, but I'll agree to disagree that Smith is a vastly superior player. In fact, I don't think he is superior at all right now. I'll take Sullinger now and I definitely expect Sullinger to take another leap or two over the next 2 seasons.

There season to date comparisons:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=sullija01&y1=2014&p2=smithjo03&y2=2014

So in his worst season to date, Smith is more or less comparable to Sullinger. Ok then.

  His worst seasons were probably when he was as inexperienced as Sully is, and he saw a predictable improvement over the next couple of years. You'd also have to consider that his production has been dropping over time.

His shot blocking has declined. Other than that, he's been a very consistent 16-18 points, 8-10 rebound per 36 over his career -- as long as he's not being asked to play SF.

  Over the last few years (per36) his scoring's gone from 19 to 18 to 16, his rebounds have gone from 10 to 8.5 to 7. His TS% the prior 3 seasons was  in the 53% to 54% range, the last 3 seasons it's been 50% twice and now 46%. It's not huge, but it's noticeable. It's possible he'll get back to the player he was 2-3 years ago with a change of scenery, but it's probably just as likely that Sully will be that good or better in a year or two.

[sofutomygaha]

A couple of thoughts

1. Josh Smith has probably already peaked as a player. His future is brighter than the terrible year that he is having, and probably better than the career-worst year he had last year, but he's not going to be the shot-blocking do-everything super athlete he was with the Hawks in his early-mid twenties. The present terribleness of his offense also suggests that he isn't going to transition from a physical freak into a super-smart, efficient player like, say, Garnett did.

If we brought him on, he ought to be a 5-6 win player, which is worth Jeff Green's money.

2. I don't know how to build a winner around Rondo and Smith- two excellent ball handlers, penetrators, and passers who can nonetheless be either dared to shoot or fouled mercilessly depending on their proximity to the basket. I do know that if you add even one more player to that starting five who can't hit an open shot, you're screwed (Rondo's promising re-invention as a midrange shooter notwithstanding).

I don't think things would be as bad as you think. Rondo can generally get into the lane when he wants to and Smith is a great finisher near the basket. Decent shooting wings would provide enough spacing. Also, teams won't foul Rondo mercilessly, just like they haven't thus far in his career. He's too good a free throw shooter, so is Smith. They aren't Shaq or Howard or Dandre Jordan.

I disagree with you, BBT. I think that Rondo has been playing away from contact for at least two years because he knows how happy other teams are to deck him when he drives to the basket. His free throw rate was very low last year, even though his usage was the highest it has ever been.

The break-even point for fouling is when the foul-ee shoots around 60% at the line. Rondo is a career 62.0 and Smith is 65.0 (but in the 50s this year and last!).  When you factor in the physical intimidation factor, there's real value in the deterrent that comes from clobbering someone a few times unless they make you pay to the tune of closer to 75% (1.5 points per possession).

Rondo is smart enough to avoid contact because he knows his limitations (few players know their own limitations better), and because I think he smells the potential for a career of chronic injuries. Smith, meanwhile, is getting fouled so little this year because he's out of position and not getting to the basket.

[Monkhouse]

A couple of thoughts

1. Josh Smith has probably already peaked as a player. His future is brighter than the terrible year that he is having, and probably better than the career-worst year he had last year, but he's not going to be the shot-blocking do-everything super athlete he was with the Hawks in his early-mid twenties. The present terribleness of his offense also suggests that he isn't going to transition from a physical freak into a super-smart, efficient player like, say, Garnett did.

If we brought him on, he ought to be a 5-6 win player, which is worth Jeff Green's money.

2. I don't know how to build a winner around Rondo and Smith- two excellent ball handlers, penetrators, and passers who can nonetheless be either dared to shoot or fouled mercilessly depending on their proximity to the basket. I do know that if you add even one more player to that starting five who can't hit an open shot, you're screwed (Rondo's promising re-invention as a midrange shooter notwithstanding).

I don't think things would be as bad as you think. Rondo can generally get into the lane when he wants to and Smith is a great finisher near the basket. Decent shooting wings would provide enough spacing. Also, teams won't foul Rondo mercilessly, just like they haven't thus far in his career. He's too good a free throw shooter, so is Smith. They aren't Shaq or Howard or Dandre Jordan.

I disagree with you, BBT. I think that Rondo has been playing away from contact for at least two years because he knows how happy other teams are to deck him when he drives to the basket. His free throw rate was very low last year, even though his usage was the highest it has ever been.

The break-even point for fouling is when the foul-ee shoots around 60% at the line. Rondo is a career 62.0 and Smith is 65.0 (but in the 50s this year and last!).  When you factor in the physical intimidation factor, there's real value in the deterrent that comes from clobbering someone a few times unless they make you pay to the tune of closer to 75% (1.5 points per possession).

Rondo is smart enough to avoid contact because he knows his limitations (few players know their own limitations better), and because I think he smells the potential for a career of chronic injuries. Smith, meanwhile, is getting fouled so little this year because he's out of position and not getting to the basket.

Its also harder for Smith to grab more boards since hes so far away from the basket, and that there are two other big men who do it just as well if not better than him.

[kozlodoev]

I'll agree that Smith has the longer track record, but I'll agree to disagree that Smith is a vastly superior player. In fact, I don't think he is superior at all right now. I'll take Sullinger now and I definitely expect Sullinger to take another leap or two over the next 2 seasons.

There season to date comparisons:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&p1=sullija01&y1=2014&p2=smithjo03&y2=2014

So in his worst season to date, Smith is more or less comparable to Sullinger. Ok then.

  His worst seasons were probably when he was as inexperienced as Sully is, and he saw a predictable improvement over the next couple of years. You'd also have to consider that his production has been dropping over time.

His shot blocking has declined. Other than that, he's been a very consistent 16-18 points, 8-10 rebound per 36 over his career -- as long as he's not being asked to play SF.

  Over the last few years (per36) his scoring's gone from 19 to 18 to 16, his rebounds have gone from 10 to 8.5 to 7. His TS% the prior 3 seasons was  in the 53% to 54% range, the last 3 seasons it's been 50% twice and now 46%. It's not huge, but it's noticeable. It's possible he'll get back to the player he was 2-3 years ago with a change of scenery, but it's probably just as likely that Sully will be that good or better in a year or two.

Over the last 7 years, Smith has averaged, per 36, in order: 16, 17.5, 16, 16, 17.5, 19 and 18 points. He's currently averaging 16 pp36 now on a team that's asking him to play out of position. I see nothing indicating decline here.

It's pretty much the same story with rebounds: 8.5, 8.5, 7.5, 9, 9, 10, 8.5. Currently, 7 rp36 while asked to play SF.

Taking out the outlier 19/10 year, pretty consistent unless asked to play SF. I don't expect to get a 19/10 guy when trading for Smith. But I'm not exactly sure Sullinger will develop into someone who posts 16 and 8 over 35 minutes for multiple seasons.

[BballTim]

A couple of thoughts

1. Josh Smith has probably already peaked as a player. His future is brighter than the terrible year that he is having, and probably better than the career-worst year he had last year, but he's not going to be the shot-blocking do-everything super athlete he was with the Hawks in his early-mid twenties. The present terribleness of his offense also suggests that he isn't going to transition from a physical freak into a super-smart, efficient player like, say, Garnett did.

If we brought him on, he ought to be a 5-6 win player, which is worth Jeff Green's money.

2. I don't know how to build a winner around Rondo and Smith- two excellent ball handlers, penetrators, and passers who can nonetheless be either dared to shoot or fouled mercilessly depending on their proximity to the basket. I do know that if you add even one more player to that starting five who can't hit an open shot, you're screwed (Rondo's promising re-invention as a midrange shooter notwithstanding).

I don't think things would be as bad as you think. Rondo can generally get into the lane when he wants to and Smith is a great finisher near the basket. Decent shooting wings would provide enough spacing. Also, teams won't foul Rondo mercilessly, just like they haven't thus far in his career. He's too good a free throw shooter, so is Smith. They aren't Shaq or Howard or Dandre Jordan.

I disagree with you, BBT. I think that Rondo has been playing away from contact for at least two years because he knows how happy other teams are to deck him when he drives to the basket. His free throw rate was very low last year, even though his usage was the highest it has ever been.

The break-even point for fouling is when the foul-ee shoots around 60% at the line. Rondo is a career 62.0 and Smith is 65.0 (but in the 50s this year and last!).  When you factor in the physical intimidation factor, there's real value in the deterrent that comes from clobbering someone a few times unless they make you pay to the tune of closer to 75% (1.5 points per possession).

Rondo is smart enough to avoid contact because he knows his limitations (few players know their own limitations better), and because I think he smells the potential for a career of chronic injuries. Smith, meanwhile, is getting fouled so little this year because he's out of position and not getting to the basket.

  Rondo probably does avoid contact on drives because he's (rightly) concerned about the injury potential from being fouled when he's in the air. But the fact that he's able to get to the rim so often without getting fouled more often is evidence that teams don't foul him with impunity. And the average team's eFG% is under 50% and the average team's TS% is 53%-54%, I don't see why the break even point on free throws would need to be so much higher than those numbers.

[snively]

2. I don't know how to build a winner around Rondo and Smith- two excellent ball handlers, penetrators, and passers who can nonetheless be either dared to shoot or fouled mercilessly depending on their proximity to the basket. I do know that if you add even one more player to that starting five who can't hit an open shot, you're screwed (Rondo's promising re-invention as a midrange shooter notwithstanding).

If you could build an ideal team around the Rondo-Smith connection, it would have to include a center who can play decent interior defense, can shoot, and doesn't clog the paint (sorry, Al Jefferson. You'd need a Garnett-Bosh-Aldridge-Horford type). Then you'd need two wings with catch-and-shoot skills.

You don't have to look very hard for a winning duo that compares to Rondo/Smith.  Look at the Kidd/Martin Nets that made back-to-back finals and then took the eventual champion Pistons to 7 games.

Obviously that team fell short of greatness, but not by all that much.  And they didn't have anything close to the center you are talking about - they had freaking Jason Collins.  Nor were their wings great catch and shoot players.  Kittles and Jefferson were solid but unexceptional shooters, but good defenders.  Not all that unlike Bradley and Green.

Rondo/Smith gives you the foundation of an excellent defensive team that can suction up defensive boards, turn teams over and field a dangerous transition attack.  Sure, you'd need to do a lot better than Jason Collins at center and add the offensive 6th man that Nets were never able to land, but that isn't all that tall of a task.

[D.o.s.]

They also had the White Mamba.

[Celtics4ever]

Sully is still only 21 years old and just scratching the surface

I disagree.   The only thing that can improve is his outside shot.   His potential was solid from the get go but limited.   He fell to us but has innate limitations, lack of size and can't jump.   He can play but protecting the rim is something he can't do.

[crimson_stallion]

If our current best player were not a PF, trying to acquire Josh Smith might make some sense.  But right now I think Sullinger is the primary building block for the team.  The cap money and trade assets you'd use up acquiring Josh Smith can be spent elsewhere.

I'd rather go out of my way to acquire Gordon Hayward or Omer Asik, though I think I'd wait, if I could, until the draft to see who the Celtics take with their pick (or who they trade for with the pick).

If Sullinger is the primary building block on this team, then we are doomed to be the next Washington Wizards and rank bottom 5 in the league for the next 10 years.

Sullinger is a role player - that's it.  I'm going to say it right now - I will be shocked if Sully is ever the second best player on a legit playoff team (I.e. one that goes past the first round) or even the third best player on a contender. 

Sully first if all is an I injury risk - back issues already at his age is not a good sign.  Secondly even when he's healthy, he still can't stay o n the court.  His conditioning is terrible, he's always in foul trouble, and he can't seem to stop commuting stupid flagrant fouls - he's already a few of those away from being suspended.

Aside from all that he's undersized and he tends to dissapear when playing against bigger players that he can't outmuscle.  He's also a power forward with a solid post game, yet decides to Jack threes at a rate similar to Jordan Crawford, despite making them at well under 30%.  Unlike Smith he doesn't have the excuse of being played out of position at SF - he's always at SF or center.

He's too slow to defend quick explosive PFs (like T Young, etc) and lacks the vertical reach or size to defend bigger centers like Hibbert and Dwight.

Don't get me wrong, Sully has some nice skills.  He's got great IQ, he's a good passer for a big, he's got a nice touch inside, decent free throw shooter, very good rebounder.  But then Big Baby had a lot of skills too, and he's still a mediocre starter.  Some believe Sully's upside is Kevin Love - maybe but I don't think he'll get there.  I thinkatbest he'll one day be a 17/9/2 player - similar numbers to Josh Smith but without the quick hands on defense or the ability to block shots and protect the paint, or the ability to defend SFs.

Those three factors make ALL the difference.  Smith can defend positions three through five, and probably even the two a t a stretch. 

Smith's ability to finish above the rim gives him greater versatility alongside a player like Rondo, who has shown a history of playing well with athletic bigs (Wilcox, KG, Hollins, etc).  He made all of those guys better simply through his ability to throw them perfect lobs on a nightly basis.  Sully is not capable of this, he can only score below the rim.  That reduced Rondos options in getting him the ball for easy baskets.

Smith's quick hands and length allow him to be distruptive on defense.  He can get his hands in the passing lanes for easy steals, and he is an excellent shot blocker both on the ball and when bringing help.  His athleticism allows him to come over from the weakside and block shots that many couldn't, purely as a result of his length, elevation and foot speed.  Sully is a non factor as a shot blocker - when he's in if there isn't a shot blocking big next to him, opposing teams get free layups all day long.

As far as consistency goes Smith is known for being a very "up and down" player, but Sully is the same.  He rarely strings together two great games in a row - a really good game usually is followed be a purely mediocre one.

To he honest I actually think Olynyk has more potential than Sully, although Sully is clearly a better player now.  I think Olynyk is more mobile, I think he's a better shooter (but needs time to find consistency), I think he's just as good (if not better) as a passer, I think he's similarly skilled in the post, and I think that (due to his greater mobility and 7 foot frame) he has greater potential defensively.  I can see Olynyk becoming a poor man's Dirk, while I see Sully becoming a poor man's Boozer.

So I truly believe that if Sully is your main building block, you are in a very unfortunate position.  Even Sacramento has had better talent than that to build around (cousins, Evans, etc) and they STILL suck.

Also if you would rather have Hawyard (who's basically a taller version of Bradley who is a more inefficient shooter and a FAR worse defender)  and  Asik (a one big man who's main use is as a rim protector, yet averages 0.5 blocks per 36 and has a worse attitude - and arguably co tract - than Smith) then I'm even more worried, because those guyshave mediocre written all over them. 

Asik is basically a Jason Collins who can rebound, and Hayward is basically a 6-8 Eric Gordon.