HoopsWorld: Josh Smith to L.A.? (DET update p9)

last stand · by **last stand** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 2:04 am

Amongst:Kings wrote:I think Denver is a dark horse team also...Melo for Smith
Denver has been entertaining the idea of moving Melo and this is the best value they will get. Atlanta also gets the best value they can and IMO even somewhat improve with this trade.

Oh and there is no way Phx is getting Smith unless Amare is involved. Diaw is a product of Nash and MDA's system, he will shortly be considered one of the more overpaid players of the NBA. Barbosa is nice, but with JJ and Bibby, there is really no need for that high priced 6th man who will only see at most 22-24 mins per game.

Besides, Diaw and Marvin Williams is a very frail sf/pf combo.

if josh were to be traded anywhere else but here i hope its to denver for carmelo

they get worse

fine by me

LakersN4 · by **LakersN4** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:26 am

I agree Denver is a darkhorse.. But I don't think they'll be giving up Melo.

Can trade exceptions be combined? If so that would explain why they wanted that 550k trade ex. they just got in the balkman deal. Add that to the 10 mil or so they have from the Camby deal..

They could be packaging those trade ex's with a young player like Kleiza & a pick or 2. Getting a young prospect & picks makes it more attractive than just letting him walk.. Not having to pay LO's salary this season makes it more attractive than our deal for their cheap owners.

I just checked & they already have these trade exceptions

Marcus Camby $10,000,000
Reggie Evans $681,400
Von Wafer $770,610

If they can add the balkman ex. to those, along with Kleiza's deal, they could give Josh close to a max deal.

kobela08mvp · by **kobela08mvp** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:20 am

ok we all want josh smith here in la but we need a third team. how abot the kninks maybe with odom going to ny and somthing like lee and randolph in atl what about that

L4L · by **L4L** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:48 am

Sporting News wrote:But things aren't how they seem. Hawks management vowed, entering free agency, to keep the negotiations with Childress and Smith separate, and they're apparently sticking with that vow. Even in light of Childress's departure, Atlanta -- which made an in-season offer of five years, $45 million to Smith -- is still playing hardball. In fact, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported yesterday that the Hawks are weighing at least two sign-and-trade offers for Smith, and that a sign-and-trade might be the only recourse for the team.

If the Childress process is any indication, though, the Hawks are not too keen on a sign-and-trade. Childress himself said there were two championship-level teams interested in talking sign-and-trade with the Hawks, and Suns VP David Griffin confirmed that Phoenix was one of those teams. "We were open to talking about it, but it never got very far," Griffin said.

Childress's agent, Lon Babby, confirmed that. "Phoenix was as close as we came to getting something done on a sign-and-trade. But I never got the sense that the Hawks were interested in that route."

Savory Griddles · by **Savory Griddles** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:35 am

L4L wrote:
Sporting News wrote:But things aren't how they seem. Hawks management vowed, entering free agency, to keep the negotiations with Childress and Smith separate, and they're apparently sticking with that vow. Even in light of Childress's departure, Atlanta -- which made an in-season offer of five years, $45 million to Smith -- is still playing hardball. In fact, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported yesterday that the Hawks are weighing at least two sign-and-trade offers for Smith, and that a sign-and-trade might be the only recourse for the team.

If the Childress process is any indication, though, the Hawks are not too keen on a sign-and-trade. Childress himself said there were two championship-level teams interested in talking sign-and-trade with the Hawks, and Suns VP David Griffin confirmed that Phoenix was one of those teams. "We were open to talking about it, but it never got very far," Griffin said.

Childress's agent, Lon Babby, confirmed that. "Phoenix was as close as we came to getting something done on a sign-and-trade. But I never got the sense that the Hawks were interested in that route."

I can see the Hawks working a sign and trade with Phoenix for Childress, but Smith is on a different level as a player. The Suns would have to offer Amare.

Why is no one talking about Utah? Everyone knows Boozer might look to go else where after this season. Boozer for Smith?

UKUGA · by **UKUGA** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:04 am

The Sporting News columnist (listed on LD, probably will be moved here soon) actually makes a good point about Odom.

Why would the Hawks want Odom at $14.5 million, just to lose him at the end of the year, when they can have Smith at $3.0 million, and still lose him?

From a team chemistry standpoint, they might be best off rolling with what they have, which includes Smith for another year, and see if they can't build something over next 10 months that will make Smith want to stay in Atlanta.

I still say that Odom could upgrade the Hawks - at least marginally - in 2008-9, and he too, might be willing to sign an extension, especially since the Hawks would have the capacity to re-sign him in 2009 (if so desired), whereas other teams wouldn't want to use up cap room on Lamar Odom, with the infamous "Summer of 2010" on the horizon.

If this is truly about money, then I think the Sportin News writer is correct. Ink Smith to the 1-year tender offer, play out another season, and let him walk in 2009 (if he so desires), rather than pay Lamar Odom over $14 milion for one year of his services.

The LeBrons · by **The LeBrons** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:25 am

UKUGA wrote:The Sporting News columnist (listed on LD, probably will be moved here soon) actually makes a good point about Odom.

Why would the Hawks want Odom at $14.5 million, just to lose him at the end of the year, when they can have Smith at $3.0 million, and still lose him?

From a team chemistry standpoint, they might be best off rolling with what they have, which includes Smith for another year, and see if they can't build something over next 10 months that will make Smith want to stay in Atlanta.

I still say that Odom could upgrade the Hawks - at least marginally - in 2008-9, and he too, might be willing to sign an extension, especially since the Hawks would have the capacity to re-sign him in 2009 (if so desired), whereas other teams wouldn't want to use up cap room on Lamar Odom, with the infamous "Summer of 2010" on the horizon.

If this is truly about money, then I think the Sportin News writer is correct. Ink Smith to the 1-year tender offer, play out another season, and let him walk in 2009 (if he so desires), rather than pay Lamar Odom over $14 milion for one year of his services.

They'd be trading Smith and Claxton, so they'd be trading about 17.5 mill for 14.5 mill. So they'd save about 3 mill next year in salary.

Savory Griddles · by **Savory Griddles** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:28 am

UKUGA wrote:The Sporting News columnist (listed on LD, probably will be moved here soon) actually makes a good point about Odom.

Why would the Hawks want Odom at $14.5 million, just to lose him at the end of the year, when they can have Smith at $3.0 million, and still lose him?

From a team chemistry standpoint, they might be best off rolling with what they have, which includes Smith for another year, and see if they can't build something over next 10 months that will make Smith want to stay in Atlanta.

I still say that Odom could upgrade the Hawks - at least marginally - in 2008-9, and he too, might be willing to sign an extension, especially since the Hawks would have the capacity to re-sign him in 2009 (if so desired), whereas other teams wouldn't want to use up cap room on Lamar Odom, with the infamous "Summer of 2010" on the horizon.

If this is truly about money, then I think the Sportin News writer is correct. Ink Smith to the 1-year tender offer, play out another season, and let him walk in 2009 (if he so desires), rather than pay Lamar Odom over $14 milion for one year of his services.

I think the idea would be not to just move Smith, but to move Smith and another contract like Speedy Claxton. The move would probably look something like this.

Odom, 2009 first for Smith and Claxton.

I'm not disagreeing with what that writer said in terms of his logic on the money issue the Hawks are considering, but I don't think the deal was a simple one for one trade.

Look. It is still pipe, but I don't think the deal is as simple as that writer pointed out. Also, the writer says the next 10 months could be used to build something in Atlanta that would make him want to stay. If they build something that special next season, the dude is going to want even more money than he does now and there will be more teams with cap room to pay it with nothing the Hawks can do about it since he'll be unrestricted. Not to mention that Smith will be so livid at the Hawks for letting him play this season for 3 million.

Josh Smith will also get cranky. If he knows there are teams out there willing to do a s&t right now that would pay him 12 million THIS season instead of having to wait until next season to get a payday, I highly doubt he will come to camp in the best of moods, if he comes at all. Especially considering he could go to Europe and make the equivalent of 10 million easy.

Savory Griddles · by **Savory Griddles** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:33 am

The LeBrons wrote:
UKUGA wrote:The Sporting News columnist (listed on LD, probably will be moved here soon) actually makes a good point about Odom.

Why would the Hawks want Odom at $14.5 million, just to lose him at the end of the year, when they can have Smith at $3.0 million, and still lose him?

From a team chemistry standpoint, they might be best off rolling with what they have, which includes Smith for another year, and see if they can't build something over next 10 months that will make Smith want to stay in Atlanta.

I still say that Odom could upgrade the Hawks - at least marginally - in 2008-9, and he too, might be willing to sign an extension, especially since the Hawks would have the capacity to re-sign him in 2009 (if so desired), whereas other teams wouldn't want to use up cap room on Lamar Odom, with the infamous "Summer of 2010" on the horizon.

If this is truly about money, then I think the Sportin News writer is correct. Ink Smith to the 1-year tender offer, play out another season, and let him walk in 2009 (if he so desires), rather than pay Lamar Odom over $14 milion for one year of his services.

They'd be trading Smith and Claxton, so they'd be trading about 17.5 mill for 14.5 mill. So they'd save about 3 mill next year in salary.

Not really. The logic is Smith signs the qualifying offer for 3.2 million. 3.2 + 5.7 + 5.2 = 14.2-14.3 million or so for Smith this season and Speedy the next two seasons. Odom makes 14.5 this season so on the whole, they lose about 300 K. Add to that the interest they make on the 5 million owed to speedy next season (since they'd essentially be paying it this season) and the Hawks probably spend 500k or so more to do the trade.

Where the problem lies in the writer's logic is that Smith would even think of coming back after getting shafted by the Hawks like that or that he would even show up to camp at all.

rock0100 · by **rock0100** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:40 am

What if the Lakers offer a 1 year contract to Josh Smith at the total amount of the MLE?

Is this possible? I know Atlanta can match, but wouldnt it force them to pay Josh Smith more then the 3 million qualifying offer?

wallangong · by **wallangong** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 8:59 am

rock0100 wrote:What if the Lakers offer a 1 year contract to Josh Smith at the total amount of the MLE?

Is this possible? I know Atlanta can match, but wouldnt it force them to pay Josh Smith more then the 3 million qualifying offer?

i'm not sure about the legality of that, but even if we did that all we'd be doing is helping Josh Smith get a couple more million. ATL would def match.

L4L · by **L4L** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:22 am

Guys, the point of dumping Speedy Claxton is to create an additional FIVE million towards a max slot next season in FA. That's a significant amount.

That will leave the Hawks at only 15 million dollars committed. Hell, that's enough to give out TWO max slots and resign all their guys if they want (specifically Marvin and potentially Bibby)

Savory Griddles · by **Savory Griddles** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:38 am

L4L wrote:Guys, the point of dumping Speedy Claxton is to create an additional FIVE million towards a max slot next season in FA. That's a significant amount.

That will leave the Hawks at only 15 million dollars committed. Hell, that's enough to give out TWO max slots and resign all their guys if they want (specifically Marvin and potentially Bibby)

I would say its significant if it weren't for the fact that Atlanta has shown no propensity to sign anyone AND there is only ONE big time player on next year's FA market, Shawn Marion. Unless Kobe opts out and signs with Atlanta. :man10:

L4L · by **L4L** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:56 am

Well, potentially:

Boozer, AI, Artest, Odom, Turkoglu, Andrew Bynum, Jason Kidd, Sheed, Rip, Andre Miller, and Bibby.

Also some mid-tier guys like Crawford and Curry.

There's also the EXTREMELY unlikely possibility Kobe and Nash hit the market.

wallangong · by **wallangong** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:57 am

Savory Griddles wrote:
L4L wrote:Guys, the point of dumping Speedy Claxton is to create an additional FIVE million towards a max slot next season in FA. That's a significant amount.

That will leave the Hawks at only 15 million dollars committed. Hell, that's enough to give out TWO max slots and resign all their guys if they want (specifically Marvin and potentially Bibby)

I would say its significant if it weren't for the fact that Atlanta has shown no propensity to sign anyone AND there is only ONE big time player on next year's FA market, Shawn Marion. Unless Kobe opts out and signs with Atlanta.

not necessarily, here's some guys they might have some interest in going after that would require mid-level to upper-echelon kind of money...

Drew Gooden
Allen Iverson
Rip Hamilton (ETO)
Al Harrington (P)
Jason Maxiell (R)
Hakin Warrick (R)
Jamal Crawford (ETO)
Eddy Curry (ETO)
Chris Wilcox
Hedo Turkoglu (ETO)
Andre Miller
Martell Webster (R)
Francisco Garcia (R)
Ron Artest
Carlos Boozer
Mehmet Okur (ETO)

i'm not saying everyone on that list will still be available, that they would want to go to the Hawks, or that ATL should throw $$$ at a lot of these guys. This is just a list that i think could command anywhere from MLE money and up. Some of them may not be able to get that money now, but if they continue to develop, then maybe next year.

it may not have the star power of 2010, but there's a lot of solid guys who could really help ATL.

UKUGA · by **UKUGA** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 10:24 am

L4L wrote:Guys, the point of dumping Speedy Claxton is to create an additional FIVE million towards a max slot next season in FA. That's a significant amount.

That will leave the Hawks at only 15 million dollars committed. Hell, that's enough to give out TWO max slots and resign all their guys if they want (specifically Marvin and potentially Bibby)

So, Odom's $14, less Speedy's $6, is $8 million.

Whereas, Smith's $3, plus Speedy's $6 is $9 million.

So, if I have this correct, the Hawks spend about $1 million less in salary this year, in an attempt to clear Speedy off the books more quickly (contract expires in 2010), and will open up a larger slot in 2009.

Is that correct?

SSpyder · by **SSpyder** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:08 am

UKUGA wrote:
L4L wrote:Guys, the point of dumping Speedy Claxton is to create an additional FIVE million towards a max slot next season in FA. That's a significant amount.

That will leave the Hawks at only 15 million dollars committed. Hell, that's enough to give out TWO max slots and resign all their guys if they want (specifically Marvin and potentially Bibby)

So, Odom's $14, less Speedy's $6, is $8 million.

Whereas, Smith's $3, plus Speedy's $6 is $9 million.

So, if I have this correct, the Hawks spend about $1 million less in salary this year, in an attempt to clear Speedy off the books more quickly (contract expires in 2010), and will open up a larger slot in 2009.

Is that correct?

Did Smith or his agent say he is willing to sign the $3M tender?

Atlanta can't just chose to sign him to the tender.

Hell, I am sure CSKA,Triumph or Dynamo of Russia would be willing to give him $10M plus per year.

At $146/barrel Russian teams can afford some NBA talent.

UKUGA · by **UKUGA** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:34 am

SSpyder wrote:
UKUGA wrote:
L4L wrote:Guys, the point of dumping Speedy Claxton is to create an additional FIVE million towards a max slot next season in FA. That's a significant amount.

That will leave the Hawks at only 15 million dollars committed. Hell, that's enough to give out TWO max slots and resign all their guys if they want (specifically Marvin and potentially Bibby)

So, Odom's $14, less Speedy's $6, is $8 million.

Whereas, Smith's $3, plus Speedy's $6 is $9 million.

So, if I have this correct, the Hawks spend about $1 million less in salary this year, in an attempt to clear Speedy off the books more quickly (contract expires in 2010), and will open up a larger slot in 2009.

Is that correct?

Did Smith or his agent say he is willing to sign the $3M tender?

Atlanta can't just chose to sign him to the tender.

Hell, I am sure CSKA,Triumph or Dynamo of Russia would be willing to give him $10M plus per year.

At $146/barrel Russian teams can afford some NBA talent.

I'm with you. I've read it stated that the Hawks can sign him to the tender offer; but, that can't be forced on a man.

But, I guess the thought would be that Smith would do it, this year, to assure that he won't have to haggle with the Hawks at all next year, if he doesn't want to.

JSM · by **JSM** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:35 am

rock0100 wrote:What if the Lakers offer a 1 year contract to Josh Smith at the total amount of the MLE?

Is this possible? I know Atlanta can match, but wouldnt it force them to pay Josh Smith more then the 3 million qualifying offer?

That would be a waste of time for everyone involved.

Savory Griddles · by **Savory Griddles** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 12:14 pm

JSM wrote:
rock0100 wrote:What if the Lakers offer a 1 year contract to Josh Smith at the total amount of the MLE?

Is this possible? I know Atlanta can match, but wouldnt it force them to pay Josh Smith more then the 3 million qualifying offer?

That would be a waste of time for everyone involved.

Not to mention that even if the Lakers didn't match, a one year contract wouldn't get us his Bird rights which means he'd leave us next offseason cause we couldn't sign him to anything more than a small raise over the MLE.

lakerman24 · by **lakerman24** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:05 pm

therealdeal wrote:im not sure if hes a better slasher than lamar, because when lamar is focused offensively he gets to the basket pretty well and pretty easily for the most part. and im not sure his addition would make us an automatically elite defensive unit, but it would definitely make us a better team

more i think about it the more im for it

Wait one minute!! as long as nobody is in front of Odom
he picks up a lot of charges.

fandango · by **fandango** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:23 pm

So far, this is the best posible scenario. :jam2:

therealdeal · by **therealdeal** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 5:54 pm

lakerman24 wrote:
therealdeal wrote:im not sure if hes a better slasher than lamar, because when lamar is focused offensively he gets to the basket pretty well and pretty easily for the most part. and im not sure his addition would make us an automatically elite defensive unit, but it would definitely make us a better team

more i think about it the more im for it

Wait one minute!! as long as nobody is in front of Odom
he picks up a lot of charges.

as a slasher your going to pick up charges
but there is no way you can possibly say that lamar is a bad or even average slasher, thats his game and he does it pretty well

Shortodom · by **Shortodom** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:39 pm

therealdeal wrote:
lakerman24 wrote:
therealdeal wrote:im not sure if hes a better slasher than lamar, because when lamar is focused offensively he gets to the basket pretty well and pretty easily for the most part. and im not sure his addition would make us an automatically elite defensive unit, but it would definitely make us a better team

more i think about it the more im for it

Wait one minute!! as long as nobody is in front of Odom
he picks up a lot of charges.

as a slasher your going to pick up charges
but there is no way you can possibly say that lamar is a bad or even average slasher, thats his game and he does it pretty well

yeah he slashes well but once he gets the ball he throws up a girly shot that gets blocked or rolls off the rim.

Crispy · by **Crispy** on Tue Jul 29, 2008 6:54 pm

I just don't see Mitch pulling the trigger. We can't afford to pay Kobe, Smith, Gasol, AND Bynum. We're also paying Fish, Sasha, Rad, and Luke a good amount of money just to be role players, all for 3+ more years I believe. THEN if you wanted to resign Farmar and Ariza later on. I don't see Mitch taking on another big long term deal. Kobe and Pau would have to take major paycuts, and Bynum would have to settle for not getting a max deal. I mean, we still have Bynum, Farmar, Ariza, Sasha improving. Maybe they become better than what we think.

I think the best move for us is to keep Odom. Let's try and move him either at the deadline or next offseason. There's so much more options.

HoopsWorld: Josh Smith to L.A.? (DET update p9)

Who is online