Poll

POLL: If we could get Josh Smith on the cheap, would you trade for him if you were Ainge?

Yes
25 (32.5%)
No
52 (67.5%)

Total Members Voted: 77

Author Topic: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?  (Read 21540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #75 on: November 26, 2014, 09:23:37 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
Comparing Gerald Wallace's shot selection to Josh Smith's is like saying the top shelf and the bottom shelf are the same 'because they're both alcohol.'

80 proof of bottom shelf will give you the same psychtropic efect as 80 proof of top shelf.

Both Wallace and Smith suck at shooting threes, so they both shouldn't shoot them. For that matter, they both suck at mid-range shots too.

.457/.278 is not a whole lot different than .469/.312

Wallace is a lot better at selecting between the options of "shoot" and "don't shoot".
Josh Smith shot 265 threes last year at 26%!  Avery Bradley shot 200 for comparison.

I think that most will agree that Smith's stat line is a ridiculously obscene, reckless, selfish pattern.

I submit to you, though, that that pattern is the ONLY reason that we could potentially get him for far below Smith's worth as a 4. He is a 4, and ONLY should play the 4.

Last year, they played him out of position at the 3, a very bad spot for him for many reasons not the least of which is how the position itself prototypically expects players  to take the three ball. As I said earlier inthis thread, that's equivelant to giving a recovering alcoholic a job as a wine-taster. The 3 is his addiction and bad things happen when he takes the three.

Mo Cheeks and lame-duck Loyer could not handle Josh Smith. Smith was brought in as Dumars' boy. Dumars had the bright idea to play him at the 3 and force it down the throats of his coaches. Dumars invested a lot of $$ and years in JSmith and consequently his ego couldn't let him get away from HIS idea that Smith could play the 3.

(As an aside, you almost couldn't blame Dumars, IF SMITH COULD SHOOT from outside of 12 feet. What a frontcourt that could have been. Drummond as your defensive center, Monroe as your strong rebounding, offensive PF and Smith as your athletic, skilled SF. Dumars was all-in and couldn't get away from his hand, to everyone's detriment That's a big reason why Monroe is so p---ed, perhaps irreconcilably so.)

If, and I know it's a huge if, Smith played for the Celtics, he will only play the 4, and Rondo WILL NOT allow him to be so reckless and selfish. Heck, he won't even pass it to him if he isn't down low. Ainge and Stevens won't allow it. I have no doubt that Ainge will not trade for him unless he's sure that he and Rondo and Stevens can keep him in check.
There are 2 components to the "cost".  First, the cost of acquiring him, which by all rights should be zero or negative.  Second, the 13.5M dollars/salary hit we have to pay a player who, by all accounts, is a below average player who is uncoachable.  The second component alone makes it unpalatable.  If we have to give up anything to get him, even worse.

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #76 on: November 26, 2014, 11:53:13 PM »

Offline csfansince60s

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6234
  • Tommy Points: 2238
Comparing Gerald Wallace's shot selection to Josh Smith's is like saying the top shelf and the bottom shelf are the same 'because they're both alcohol.'

80 proof of bottom shelf will give you the same psychtropic efect as 80 proof of top shelf.

Both Wallace and Smith suck at shooting threes, so they both shouldn't shoot them. For that matter, they both suck at mid-range shots too.

.457/.278 is not a whole lot different than .469/.312

Wallace is a lot better at selecting between the options of "shoot" and "don't shoot".
Josh Smith shot 265 threes last year at 26%!  Avery Bradley shot 200 for comparison.

I think that most will agree that Smith's stat line is a ridiculously obscene, reckless, selfish pattern.

I submit to you, though, that that pattern is the ONLY reason that we could potentially get him for far below Smith's worth as a 4. He is a 4, and ONLY should play the 4.

Last year, they played him out of position at the 3, a very bad spot for him for many reasons not the least of which is how the position itself prototypically expects players  to take the three ball. As I said earlier inthis thread, that's equivelant to giving a recovering alcoholic a job as a wine-taster. The 3 is his addiction and bad things happen when he takes the three.

Mo Cheeks and lame-duck Loyer could not handle Josh Smith. Smith was brought in as Dumars' boy. Dumars had the bright idea to play him at the 3 and force it down the throats of his coaches. Dumars invested a lot of $$ and years in JSmith and consequently his ego couldn't let him get away from HIS idea that Smith could play the 3.

(As an aside, you almost couldn't blame Dumars, IF SMITH COULD SHOOT from outside of 12 feet. What a frontcourt that could have been. Drummond as your defensive center, Monroe as your strong rebounding, offensive PF and Smith as your athletic, skilled SF. Dumars was all-in and couldn't get away from his hand, to everyone's detriment That's a big reason why Monroe is so p---ed, perhaps irreconcilably so.)

If, and I know it's a huge if, Smith played for the Celtics, he will only play the 4, and Rondo WILL NOT allow him to be so reckless and selfish. Heck, he won't even pass it to him if he isn't down low. Ainge and Stevens won't allow it. I have no doubt that Ainge will not trade for him unless he's sure that he and Rondo and Stevens can keep him in check.
There are 2 components to the "cost".  First, the cost of acquiring him, which by all rights should be zero or negative.  Second, the 13.5M dollars/salary hit we have to pay a player who, by all accounts, is a below average player who is uncoachable.  The second component alone makes it unpalatable.  If we have to give up anything to get him, even worse.

Cost is only half of the equation. Benefit is the second half, which you kind of addressed by opining that Smith is both a below average player and uncoachable.

As to cost, you accurately assessed the cost as both what we give up to acquire Smith and what we have to pay him.

As to "assets" that we would have to give up, let's assume that we could acquire Smith for Wallace, Bass. Wallace has played 8 minutes per game averaging 0.6 ppg and 0 assists and . 8 rebounds at over $10 mil per. Bass in 18 mpg averages 8 ppg, 1 apg and 3 rpg. So combined, both combined play26 mpg, and put up 9ppg, 1 apg and 4 rpg. All for $17 mil per year.

Compare these numbers to Smith's 33mpg, 13ppg, 4apg and 7 rpg for less combined $$$.

Given that we save $$$ this year which is equivalent to our extra cost of Smiths salary next year, you are accurate that Smiths $13.5 mil salary his last year is the extra it would cost us over the next 2 1/2 years to have Josh Smith.

It seems we agree on all this regarding cost.Where we disagree is what's benefits inure to us by having Smith play for us.

You refer to him as a below average player. A guy who averages 15/8/3 and 2 BLOCKS per game in his career is far from an even average player, never mind a below average player.

Josh Smith is by far the best player in this deal.

Is there a risk in acquiring him? Absolutely.

Your characterization of him as uncoachable, while an exaggeration, is not unfounded.

We differ , though, in whether or not he can be reigned in. You think not. I think that given the strength of the Rondo/Ainge/Stevens troika and Ainge doing his due diligence in assessing Smiths receptivity to being reigned in, what Smith brings in his athleticism, court awareness defense and rim protection is worth the risk of the extra $$$ to pay him and the meager assets to acquire him.

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #77 on: November 27, 2014, 12:02:49 AM »

Online SHAQATTACK

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36776
  • Tommy Points: 2961
Meh....

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #78 on: November 28, 2014, 10:22:55 PM »

Offline PickNRoll

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
  • Tommy Points: 199
Comparing Gerald Wallace's shot selection to Josh Smith's is like saying the top shelf and the bottom shelf are the same 'because they're both alcohol.'

80 proof of bottom shelf will give you the same psychtropic efect as 80 proof of top shelf.

Both Wallace and Smith suck at shooting threes, so they both shouldn't shoot them. For that matter, they both suck at mid-range shots too.

.457/.278 is not a whole lot different than .469/.312

Wallace is a lot better at selecting between the options of "shoot" and "don't shoot".
Josh Smith shot 265 threes last year at 26%!  Avery Bradley shot 200 for comparison.

I think that most will agree that Smith's stat line is a ridiculously obscene, reckless, selfish pattern.

I submit to you, though, that that pattern is the ONLY reason that we could potentially get him for far below Smith's worth as a 4. He is a 4, and ONLY should play the 4.

Last year, they played him out of position at the 3, a very bad spot for him for many reasons not the least of which is how the position itself prototypically expects players  to take the three ball. As I said earlier inthis thread, that's equivelant to giving a recovering alcoholic a job as a wine-taster. The 3 is his addiction and bad things happen when he takes the three.

Mo Cheeks and lame-duck Loyer could not handle Josh Smith. Smith was brought in as Dumars' boy. Dumars had the bright idea to play him at the 3 and force it down the throats of his coaches. Dumars invested a lot of $$ and years in JSmith and consequently his ego couldn't let him get away from HIS idea that Smith could play the 3.

(As an aside, you almost couldn't blame Dumars, IF SMITH COULD SHOOT from outside of 12 feet. What a frontcourt that could have been. Drummond as your defensive center, Monroe as your strong rebounding, offensive PF and Smith as your athletic, skilled SF. Dumars was all-in and couldn't get away from his hand, to everyone's detriment That's a big reason why Monroe is so p---ed, perhaps irreconcilably so.)

If, and I know it's a huge if, Smith played for the Celtics, he will only play the 4, and Rondo WILL NOT allow him to be so reckless and selfish. Heck, he won't even pass it to him if he isn't down low. Ainge and Stevens won't allow it. I have no doubt that Ainge will not trade for him unless he's sure that he and Rondo and Stevens can keep him in check.
There are 2 components to the "cost".  First, the cost of acquiring him, which by all rights should be zero or negative.  Second, the 13.5M dollars/salary hit we have to pay a player who, by all accounts, is a below average player who is uncoachable.  The second component alone makes it unpalatable.  If we have to give up anything to get him, even worse.

Cost is only half of the equation. Benefit is the second half, which you kind of addressed by opining that Smith is both a below average player and uncoachable.

As to cost, you accurately assessed the cost as both what we give up to acquire Smith and what we have to pay him.

As to "assets" that we would have to give up, let's assume that we could acquire Smith for Wallace, Bass. Wallace has played 8 minutes per game averaging 0.6 ppg and 0 assists and . 8 rebounds at over $10 mil per. Bass in 18 mpg averages 8 ppg, 1 apg and 3 rpg. So combined, both combined play26 mpg, and put up 9ppg, 1 apg and 4 rpg. All for $17 mil per year.

Compare these numbers to Smith's 33mpg, 13ppg, 4apg and 7 rpg for less combined $$$.

Given that we save $$$ this year which is equivalent to our extra cost of Smiths salary next year, you are accurate that Smiths $13.5 mil salary his last year is the extra it would cost us over the next 2 1/2 years to have Josh Smith.

It seems we agree on all this regarding cost.Where we disagree is what's benefits inure to us by having Smith play for us.

You refer to him as a below average player. A guy who averages 15/8/3 and 2 BLOCKS per game in his career is far from an even average player, never mind a below average player.

Josh Smith is by far the best player in this deal.

Is there a risk in acquiring him? Absolutely.

Your characterization of him as uncoachable, while an exaggeration, is not unfounded.

We differ , though, in whether or not he can be reigned in. You think not. I think that given the strength of the Rondo/Ainge/Stevens troika and Ainge doing his due diligence in assessing Smiths receptivity to being reigned in, what Smith brings in his athleticism, court awareness defense and rim protection is worth the risk of the extra $$$ to pay him and the meager assets to acquire him.
Smith has a PER of 13 and he's shooting 37%.  He's below average.  Don't let the 2 blocks fool you - the guy gives zero effort on defense. 

In 10 years no coach has been able to keep him from shooting outside, even though he's a 27% 3pt shooter.  He's uncoachable, by definition.

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #79 on: December 04, 2014, 04:50:42 PM »

Offline Monkhouse

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6932
  • Tommy Points: 814
  • A true Celtic plays with heart.
After last night in OT, and the entire game, Smith played terrible... Sure he passed, played good defense, but he just isn't worth the cap commitment.
"I bomb atomically, Socrates' philosophies and hypotheses
Can't define how I be dropping these mockeries."

Is the glass half-full or half-empty?
It's based on your perspective, quite simply
We're the same and we're not; know what I'm saying? Listen
Son, I ain't better than you, I just think different

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #80 on: December 17, 2014, 03:39:12 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
Thought I'd give this thread a bump since it was based on getting Smith on the cheap. Seems Smith is on the block.

I still vote yes if it's a cheap deal centered around Wallace, Fav and LAC 1st. Smith is still a good front court defender.

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #81 on: December 17, 2014, 03:47:42 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
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.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #82 on: December 17, 2014, 03:52:06 PM »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Tommy Points: 419
I don't want Smith and after the way the Pistons are playing, I don't want Van Gundy either

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #83 on: December 17, 2014, 04:05:02 PM »

Offline curtjester1

  • Jaden Springer
  • Posts: 8
  • Tommy Points: 0
NO!

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #84 on: December 17, 2014, 04:06:23 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
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 don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #85 on: December 17, 2014, 04:06:54 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
I don't want Smith and after the way the Pistons are playing, I don't want Van Gundy either

Gotta call you out on that one -- the verdict's out as to his abilities as a general manager, but SVG would be an incredible upgrade to the coaching staff here if we installed him as head coach tomorrow.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #86 on: December 17, 2014, 04:12:09 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
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.

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #87 on: December 17, 2014, 04:14:28 PM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
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 don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #88 on: December 17, 2014, 04:20:19 PM »

Offline D Dub

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3123
  • Tommy Points: 251
Buy low on Josh Smith sounds good except how he fits with Rondo ie two bad outside shooters...

How about Rajon for Smith straight up?

Clear the way for Smart & Smith to lead this team; and playing him exclusely at the 4 would go a long way towards shoring up our D.   On the other hand his assumes Smart is the real deal, which is risky....   

Re: POLL: Josh Smith benched by Van Gundy: do we want him?
« Reply #89 on: December 17, 2014, 04:27:08 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
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.