Author Topic: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.  (Read 7050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2014, 06:13:11 PM »

Offline Rosco917

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6108
  • Tommy Points: 559
Wow, at one time in Atlanta he was considered a future super star. He's had a steady decline in the last 4 or 5 years, I didn't think it had gotten to this.

Poor shooting percentages can kill you. He's another of the I can't hit free throws minority, he's under 50% from the charity stripe? He was shooting 41% from the field.

What does this do to the Piston/Monroe relationship?

   

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2014, 06:26:38 PM »

Online rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9672
  • Tommy Points: 325
And I believe I still would not have wanted him in green.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

— C.S. Lewis

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2014, 06:31:27 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8113
  • Tommy Points: 549
Wow, at one time in Atlanta he was considered a future super star. He's had a steady decline in the last 4 or 5 years, I didn't think it had gotten to this.

Poor shooting percentages can kill you. He's another of the I can't hit free throws minority, he's under 50% from the charity stripe? He was shooting 41% from the field.

What does this do to the Piston/Monroe relationship?

   

Monroe is going to whoever offers the most money to make up for what he lost taking the qualifying offer.  With the new TV deal coming, I think someone will offer him the Max but I don't think it will be Detroit. 

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2014, 06:31:52 PM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
I've never wanted Smith near this basketball team.

Rather swallow one more year of the Wallace albatross than take on Smith and that contract.
Yup. Better to just move on. Josh Smith hasn't shown me much the past two years to make me think he'd be more than a good role playing piece on a winning team. Certainly not one of your core players.

Maybe a good coaching and some motivation will get Atlanta Josh Smith back, but I doubt it. He's older and always relied on his athletic gifts and bad judgment more than anything.

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2014, 06:46:01 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8825
  • Tommy Points: 289
My suspicion is actually the opposite from yours, JSD -- I think that Detroit cut Smith because they didn't want to take on players like Bass and contracts like Wallace, and those were the only deals out there.
This doesn't make much sense. How is it better to have no player, and a contract worse than Wallace's (which is what they achieved by cutting Smith).
Good call DOS.,
Koz if you are using stretch to avoid tax due to expecting to max sign of Monroe.  Smith stretch is better than Wallace stretch. This is because Smith had an extra year his stretch means less $ a year. Stretch rule is 2x years left +1 year. Longer the contract easier the stretch.
The math in this case is clearly for letting Bass expire and waiving Wallace with a stretch, simply because Smith makes a boatload of money:

Smith's stretch -- $28 million over 5 years = ~5.6 million dead cap.
Wallace's stretch -- $10.1 million over 3 years = ~3.3 million dead cap.

The only caveat is that you can only stretch contracts signed under the new CBA, and I'm not sure Wallace's is.

Also wanted to comment on the bold part: exactly the opposite is true, because in shorter contracts, the "relative weight" of the extra year is higher. At least provided you define "easier to stretch" as "providing the highest cap savings relative to the original per-annum amount".

Example: a $10 million per season contract stretches to $3.3 mil if it's a one-year deal ($10*1/3), and for $4 mil if it is a 2-year deal ($10*2/5). The longer the deal, the higher the stretch amount.
I don't think stretch can be used on Wallace this year if you trade for him.

Re: Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2014, 07:21:21 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
I am a bit confused...could someone explain this to me

had we actually trade Bass and Wallace for Josh, it also means we are committed in paying him the 2 years and 13 mil

But now that he is cut, the teams that are trying to sign him, they do not pay him 13 mil? but they could offer something like vet min, a mid or something like that?

If it's the latter, say we kept Rondo, we could've had Josh Smith for the vet min. while he still gets paid by Detroit? right?

Yeah, that's how I understand it.
No I don't think so. This is not the NFL, contacts are guaranteed so Detroit continues to pay his salary until someone picks him up, which no one did because of the fat contract. I think. 

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2014, 07:26:11 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
It's fair to assume that Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass, as evident by the fact that Detriot just out right cut him.

Would you have done that trade if you were Danny?

No.

If they'd cut him earlier and I could have added him to the team for next to nothing, I might have done that and held off on trading Rondo.  But I'm not giving up anything of real value for Josh Smith after his history in Atlanta and Detroit.

Mike
I was thinking something like that could have happened. If the Mavs deal didn't happen, they could have picked up Smith for free without trading Bass/Wallace. Give it one more run this year with a starting lineup of
Rondo
Bradley
Green
Smith
Zeller
and probably made the playoffs in the weak East and made a 1st round exit.

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2014, 07:27:19 PM »

Offline aingeforthree

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2013
  • Tommy Points: 134
Bass is so undervalued on this board

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2014, 07:29:16 PM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
My suspicion is actually the opposite from yours, JSD -- I think that Detroit cut Smith because they didn't want to take on players like Bass and contracts like Wallace, and those were the only deals out there.
This doesn't make much sense. How is it better to have no player, and a contract worse than Wallace's (which is what they achieved by cutting Smith).
Good call DOS.,
Koz if you are using stretch to avoid tax due to expecting to max sign of Monroe.  Smith stretch is better than Wallace stretch. This is because Smith had an extra year his stretch means less $ a year. Stretch rule is 2x years left +1 year. Longer the contract easier the stretch.

Exactly -- and if you're not trying to take on other bad contracts (and Smith was unlikely to have much value as an expiring three years down the road), the stretch provision makes a bit of sense to minimize the cap hold from Smith's deal if he really was untradable.

As has already been deduced, the Pistons would not be able to stretch Wallace (as far as I know).
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: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2014, 07:36:48 PM »

Offline piercetruth34

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 269
  • Tommy Points: 20
why do we need josh smith?  Don't start with this stuff now..  This team is not going to be very good.  we just shot 2-21 lol..  It's about building and letting these young guys learn the hard way now. I'm not being pessimistic either.  It's just about youth, hard work and learning and being patient at this point.  Always has been.

Detroit couldn't trade Smith. That's why they released him.  He has no trade value either.   

Why would they take on longer contracts to do that? They are in the same position we are.

If that happened we'd just release him and he'd go to a contender anyways.  Wasn't happening out of respect to Josh Smith too.

Bass still has some value to us possibly.  Same with Wallace. Obviously not by themselves because they haven't been dealt yet but I'm guesing ainge tried to package rondo those ways and could possibly try to package them with some of our youth but not sure that's what he wants to do.  Probably not right now.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2014, 08:03:10 PM by piercetruth34 »

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2014, 11:53:43 AM »

Offline Casey @ Bat

  • Drew Peterson
  • Posts: 2
  • Tommy Points: 0
Makes you wonder what fans actually see in players. He blows. With Rondo here it would blow even more.




X2. Josh Smith really blows. The idea is to get better, not worse.

Re: Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2014, 12:07:21 PM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
I am a bit confused...could someone explain this to me

had we actually trade Bass and Wallace for Josh, it also means we are committed in paying him the 2 years and 13 mil

But now that he is cut, the teams that are trying to sign him, they do not pay him 13 mil? but they could offer something like vet min, a mid or something like that?

If it's the latter, say we kept Rondo, we could've had Josh Smith for the vet min. while he still gets paid by Detroit? right?

Yeah, that's how I understand it.
No I don't think so. This is not the NFL, contacts are guaranteed so Detroit continues to pay his salary until someone picks him up, which no one did because of the fat contract. I think.

Detroit is using the stretch provision on Smith so they will be paying his full salary over the next 4 or 5 years (forget how long). Whoever picks him up now (Houston) will only be on the hook for paying him whatever value he signs his new contract at. (Which Looks to be the 2.1 biannual).

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2014, 12:46:46 PM »

Offline celticpride1

  • Jrue Holiday
  • Posts: 382
  • Tommy Points: 40
Why would you want Smith he is a shell of his former self. I would rather have one less year of Wallace.

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2014, 03:45:52 PM »

Offline timpiker

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1696
  • Tommy Points: 112
No way....useless for this team.

Re: I believe Josh Smith could have been had for Wallace and Bass.
« Reply #29 on: December 25, 2014, 05:35:54 PM »

Offline bballdog384

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 631
  • Tommy Points: 65
  • Rondolope
Wallace is going to be an expiring contract next year.. he'll be very valuable, as this can be added to picks/youth to match salaries for a potential star.
"You can't play like a robot" -Coach Stevens