If the Spurs re-sign Parker...?

[Nathan89]

If the spurs end up resigning Tony Parker this year, do you think that the spurs should trade George Hill? Are you for a trade yes/no and why/why not. If you are for the trade of hill what position would you want to upgrade.

I think we should trade him if we resign Parker. I would want to trade him because I am not a fan of playing tony and hill at the same time. Teams that play a small pg and sg just do not win. Just playing hill at the pg will not allow him very many minutes and that would just be a waste of talent. By trading him we can then upgrade talent of other positions. Also temple seems to have the potential to be a solid back-up pg.

[Muser]

No

[timvp]

Teams that play a small pg and sg just do not win.

The Lakers just won a championship playing three midget guards and Kobe Bryant at the guard positions.

[ajh18]

I would re-sign parker. When Tim Duncan and Manu retire in 2-3 years, the Spurs will be in a position to make a decision:

Keep a team of Parker/Hill/Anderson (hopefully)/Blair/Splitter/whoever else, and try and add a key free agent or two to make a new run at the title

or

Trade off assets. I think you have to do one or the other. That team isnt nearly a contender as it stands, but wouldnt be a top lottery team either. At that point, if Tony wanted to go, I'd trade him and whoever else for picks and prospects. Use the cap space to facilitate trades and pick up picks. And just start over.

Frankly, I'm not sure which option I'd choose. I think the above team with a key free agent (lol, Durant? In our dreams) could contend depending on what other teams look like by then.

[Nathan89]

The Lakers just won a championship playing three midget guards and Kobe Bryant at the guard positions.

Kobe played 41 minutes per game in every round of the playoffs besides the first round. In the regular season he played 38min per game. Manu played 28min(reg.season)33min(first round)38min(sec.rd). Manu cant handle any more than 33 min. per game. This will force us to play to much of tony and hill.

[Blake]

If the spurs end up resigning Tony Parker this year, do you think that the spurs should trade George Hill? Are you for a trade yes/no and why/why not. If you are for the trade of hill what position would you want to upgrade.

I think we should trade him if we resign Parker. I would want to trade him because I am not a fan of playing tony and hill at the same time. Teams that play a small pg and sg just do not win. Just playing hill at the pg will not allow him very many minutes and that would just be a waste of talent. By trading him we can then upgrade talent of other positions. Also temple seems to have the potential to be a solid back-up pg.

who do you think the Spurs would get for Hill?

[Nathan89]

who do you think the Spurs would get for Hill?

I am not sure who I would get but it would either be a sf or a big.

Reasons to get rid of g.hill if parker resigns:

1. Team that play a small pg and sg do not win.(mavericks)

2. We have temple to play backup pg.

3. If anderson is as good as I am hoping then I want him to get all the backup sg minutes. If we do give anderson all the backup sg minutes then g.hill will be a waste of talent on the bench.

4. If we did it this year we could upgrade the sf. Next off season I would get a nice you big.

I am shocked that only me and one other person find it beneficial to trade g.hill if the spurs resign parker.

[kaji157]

We have to keep him, because when Duncan and Manu will be gone, TP will most likely want out, and Splitter, Blair and Hill will be our main core with maybe one of the other youngsters.
Tony will be resigned for around 5-6 years, so by the time Duncan and Manu are gone he will have 3 years left which is very tradeable if he keeps his actual level of play. And he can nail us a couple of younger players to complete our rebuilding process and some picks for sure.
I think RJ last year will also come into play the same way, helping us acquire picks and younger players.
Hill, Blair and Splitter will already be under new contracts, but most likely cheap ones given that they will be restricted free agents, and with whatever we can get for Tony and RJ we can very much be set within 2 years after TD and Manu retire.

[Blake]

I am shocked that only me and one other person find it beneficial to trade g.hill if the spurs resign parker.

what makes you think that Hill and Parker will play much together?

I'd rather have Tony come off the bench than Temple.

..or is Manu too short to start at the 2 guard for you?

[Nathan89]

We have to keep him, because when Duncan and Manu will be gone, TP will most likely want out, and Splitter, Blair and Hill will be our main core with maybe one of the other youngsters.
Tony will be resigned for around 5-6 years, so by the time Duncan and Manu are gone he will have 3 years left which is very tradeable if he keeps his actual level of play. And he can nail us a couple of younger players to complete our rebuilding process and some picks for sure.
I think RJ last year will also come into play the same way, helping us acquire picks and younger players.
Hill, Blair and Splitter will already be under new contracts, but most likely cheap ones given that they will be restricted free agents, and with whatever we can get for Tony and RJ we can very much be set within 2 years after TD and Manu retire.

I just want the spurs to do everything we can to win a ring with timmy. I do not want to wait. I think you settling for mediocrity.

[Blake]

I think you settling for mediocrity.

I think you want to trade Hill for mediocrity

[TheSpursFNRule]

This thread is strange. Why in the hell would the Spurs ever trade Hill? Pop and the FO love this guy. He is a prototypical Spur, for christ sakes no one even knew about this guy before SA drafted him. We've had him on our radar for quite sometime and I would go as far to say that he is one of the more untouchable guys on our roster.

[Nathan89]

what makes you think that Hill and Parker will play much together?

I'd rather have Tony come off the bench than Temple.

..or is Manu too short to start at the 2 guard for you?

If hill and Parker do not play much together then hill is a waste of talent. If we do play them a lot then were playing small and that does not win. The only team we can play hill and tony against is the mavericks. Against all the other playoff team hill and parker together is a terrible line up. That is why we should trade him if we resign parker. I do not know why you would want the spurs best player coming off the bench. Of course manu is appropriate sg size.

[Nathan89]

I think you want to trade Hill for mediocrity

No I want to trade hill for a player that is of equal talent but a different position. A position that will make the spurs much better than have hill. I would prefer to never see tony and hill on the court at the same time. In the playoff tony can play 36 minutes per game. That would leave only 12 minute for g.hill. That not nearly enough for a talent like g.hill so pop is forced to play hill and parker at the same time. I think the team would be much better if temple would take that 12 minutes. Anderson will then get all the backup sg minutes. I think that anderson and parker is a better lineup than hill and parker.

[analyzed]

Seriously in the near future either Parker or Hill has to go. One or the other will suffer and not be maximized if they play in the same team. It has been Ok for the past 2 years due to Hill still developing and Parker's injury, but at some point something has to give. We are better of trading one of them to fill in need such as a quality SF or athletic combo forward

[chazley]

Sorry, but we keep Hill no matter what even though we have Tony. Our gap at backup SF is too big, and 3-guard lineups with Manu/Tony/George are very effective for us. In this Spurs offense, all you need your SF to do is hit the corner 3 and play excellent defense, anything extra is just icing on the cupcake. Hill is capable of great defense and hits those corner 3s at a great rate.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

No I want to trade hill for a player that is of equal talent but a different position. A position that will make the spurs much better than have hill. I would prefer to never see tony and hill on the court at the same time. In the playoff tony can play 36 minutes per game. That would leave only 12 minute for g.hill. That not nearly enough for a talent like g.hill so pop is forced to play hill and parker at the same time. I think the team would be much better if temple would take that 12 minutes. Anderson will then get all the backup sg minutes. I think that anderson and parker is a better lineup than hill and parker.

Fair enough for wanting someone equally talented for another position, however, it seems like many Spurs fans tend to overrate him badly. He's not going to bring someone good enough to start in a trade, he's not that talented, neither is his trade value that good, being a 6'2 SG.

[portnoy1]

I think you first wait and see how team chemistry works with a healthy TP. The Spurs went on a nice run when TP went down. The Spurs starting unit played well with Manu. However it was quite obvious that TP didnt have the same effect playing with the bench guys. He got his 20pts buy was never able to get anyone else in a groove like Manu did when he came off the bench with the likes of blair and bogans. Their is no excuse for Bonners play in the playoffs period. If the the chemistry is good then you resign TP and see if you can get something good for hill. If Chemistry aint right and a healthy TP still isnt gelling with the other guys similiar to last year then he is the one you trade.

[elemento]

We're gonna keep Hill no matter what

And i don't think Parker is going to stay in SA. Next season will be the last as a Spurs player.

[Blake]

No I want to trade hill for a player that is of equal talent but a different position. A position that will make the spurs much better than have hill. I would prefer to never see tony and hill on the court at the same time. In the playoff tony can play 36 minutes per game. That would leave only 12 minute for g.hill. That not nearly enough for a talent like g.hill so pop is forced to play hill and parker at the same time. I think the team would be much better if temple would take that 12 minutes. Anderson will then get all the backup sg minutes. I think that anderson and parker is a better lineup than hill and parker.


6 Parker-Hill-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan 69.0 1.10 0.81 +33 7 3 70.0%
7 Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan 63.6 1.21 1.00 +35 15 7 68.1%

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910SAS2.HTM

eh. basically the same.

Unless there is some great offer on the table, and you have provided none, there is no good reason to trade Hill.

[SpursNextRomanEmpire]

Hell no!

[Drachen]

Two words: Rookie contract.

[ohmwrecker]

This whole concept is just ass backwards. Why is it always an either/or thing with you people? Parker and Hill can both play on the same team and play well together. Really, they can . . . I promise.

[lefty]

Parker is gone


GONE !

[jag]

Parker to the Suns for Turkoglu..final offer.

[ohmwrecker]

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/47/makeitstop.jpg

[LoneStarState'sPride]

Dear God some of y'all are retarded. By all means keep Hill--why is this concept of having a Parker/Hill threat in the backcourt so impossible for some of y'all to wrap your minds around?

[Blake]

Dear God some of y'all are retarded. By all means keep Hill--why is this concept of having a Parker/Hill threat in the backcourt so impossible for some of y'all to wrap your minds around?

Because apparently, teams that play a small pg and sg just do not win.

[024]

depends. i'm not yet confident of a hill/parker backcourt. hill should only be used as trade bait to get a player that immediately improves the spurs like an all star caliber SF/PF. would be kind of retarded to trade hill for young assets, when he already is a young asset.

[Nathan89]

6 Parker-Hill-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan 69.0 1.10 0.81 +33 7 3 70.0%
7 Parker-Ginobili-Jefferson-McDyess-Duncan 63.6 1.21 1.00 +35 15 7 68.1%

eh. basically the same.

Unless there is some great offer on the table, and you have provided none, there is no good reason to trade Hill.

So your telling me that the team is basically the same with hill on the court as they are with manu on the court. I guess hill is basically as good as manu. Thanks for letting me know, we should be a lock for the finals now.

Just a thought, could it be that statistics are overrated and deceiving. Hopefully now you have come to that realization.

[Nathan89]

Two words: Rookie contract.

We might have to package him up with bonner. Whatabummer

[Seventyniner]

The only way the Spurs trade Hill is if they really want to dump RJ's contract.

[Nathan89]

The only way the Spurs trade Hill is if they really want to dump RJ's contract.

We should be able to get someone really good for that. A very nice starter and maybe a garbage player like hairston.

[TDMVPDPOY]

dump rjs contract, get rid of parker, duncans contract expires next season same with ginoboli...dump bonner contract

spurs back under cap...lets get 2-3 Allstarts to join this team

[SPURSGOAT]

Hill will not be traded... Pop and co love the guy; he is being crafted to be in the Spurs system for a long while... Parker on the other hand will probably get traded in the next couple of seasons...

[Pauleta14]

Hill will not be traded... Pop and co love the guy; he is being crafted to be in the Spurs system for a long while... Parker on the other hand will probably get traded in the next couple of seasons...


Who's the girl on the 1st pic?

[SPURSGOAT]

Who's the girl on the 1st pic?

I wish I knew...:(

[Nathan89]

Who's the girl on the 1st pic?

Have no clue who that girl is but it looks like that is the back of R.C. Buford's head.

[Bito Corleone]

Two words: Rookie contract.

This! I don't understand how people overlook these things. Who in their right mind would want to trade away Hill for a player that is making the same money and will most definitely not be as good a player?

[Nathan89]

This! I don't understand how people overlook these things. Who in their right mind would want to trade away Hill for a player that is making the same money and will most definitely not be as good a player?

Package him up with bonner,dice, or rj.

[Bito Corleone]

Package him up with bonner,dice, or rj.

Maybe Dice, but RJ or Bonner? Just so I can better understand your logic, would you mind making me a list teams you think are lining up to bring on Bonner @ 4yrs/$16M, or RJ @ 4yrs/$40M...even with Hill being included?

[Nathan89]

Maybe Dice, but RJ or Bonner? Just so I can better understand your logic, would you mind making me a list teams you think are lining up to bring on Bonner @ 4yrs/$16M, or RJ @ 4yrs/$40M...even with Hill being included?

Rj is a longshot. Hill with dice and bonner are definitely possible. Is 4yrs/16m official? Whatever the contract is for bonner if the spurs(the best organization in the nba) will give him the contract then I think someone will take it.

[admiralsnackbar]

Rj is a longshot. Hill with dice and bonner are definitely possible. Is 4yrs/16m official? Whatever the contract is for bonner if the spurs(the best organization in the nba) will give him the contract then I think someone will take it.

Are you even listening to yourself, man? :lol

[Nathan89]

Are you even listening to yourself, man? :lol

:nope to this-->:lol

I'm not talking, I am typing. If you disagree with something please point it out and why you disagree. I guarantee some team will take a bonner+hill or dice+hill package trade. If not we can find another nice young cheap piece. I do not think that good player on a rookie contract.

[admiralsnackbar]

Alright, then -- let's clarify: you're saying other FOs are salivating over our scrubs and willing to give up an exceptional player because the Spurs are the best organization in the league? You don't give other FOs much credit in the brain department?

[intlspurshk]

If anyone needs to be traded, it is Parker as he would yield the best return. If he is re-signed, it will even make more sense to trade Parker as the other team would not need to worry about losing him in the FA market

[Bito Corleone]

I'm not talking, I am typing. If you disagree with something please point it out and why you disagree. I guarantee some team will take a bonner+hill or dice+hill package trade. If not we can find another nice young cheap piece. I do not think that good player on a rookie contract.

:bang

Can you guarantee That any of those teams can give us back equal/greater value than we already have with Hill? Plus, Hill's a combo guard anyway, and a natural 2 guard at that...why are you under the impression that we should even think of getting rid of him if Parker resigns.

If you find some team that wants to trade us an all-star for Hill/Bonner or Hill/Dice then I'll accept your desire to get rid of him. But you don't give away a player who earns slightly more than $1M/year and has shown that he is more than capable of starting for us. That is a piece for both now and the future...why do you want to give that away.

Take a look at your poll results before you keep trying to justify trading him. :toast

[Nathan89]

Alright, then -- let's clarify: you're saying other FOs are salivating over our scrubs and willing to give up an exceptional player because the Spurs are the best organization in the league? You don't give other FOs much credit in the brain department?

To be honest I am not very impressed with most of the other FOs. The ideal team to send bonner+hill to would be a non-playoff team because bonner performs his best in the reg.season.

[Nathan89]

If anyone needs to be traded, it is Parker as he would yield the best return. If he is re-signed, it will even make more sense to trade Parker as the other team would not need to worry about losing him in the FA market

If we trade parker we will probably get significantly less in return. I would not be against a parker trade if the right deal was proposed. I think it is easier to trade hill and still get equal value but at a different position.

As for the sentence in bold:splitter.

[Nathan89]

:bang

Can you guarantee That any of those teams can give us back equal/greater value than we already have with Hill? Plus, Hill's a combo guard anyway, and a natural 2 guard at that...why are you under the impression that we should even think of getting rid of him if Parker resigns.

If you find some team that wants to trade us an all-star for Hill/Bonner or Hill/Dice then I'll accept your desire to get rid of him. But you don't give away a player who earns slightly more than $1M/year and has shown that he is more than capable of starting for us. That is a piece for both now and the future...why do you want to give that away.

Take a look at your poll results before you keep trying to justify trading him. :toast

I cant guarantee it but I do believe we could get at least equal value. What I was trying to stress was that bonner was not a deal breaker for every team.

[admiralsnackbar]

To be honest I am not very impressed with most of the other FOs.

I expect the feeling might be mutual if they happened upon this thread. I mean how could they live with themselves knowing you see right through their flimsy designs? Now everybody will know their dark secret: they jock ex-Spurs just to touch the hem of the greatest organization in all sports' garment.

As for Hill... the guy's play is worth more than his current salary and Bonner's combined, so you're looking at slim slim pickings as far as getting a player of equal talent back -- from a losing team or otherwise.

[Bito Corleone]

Has anyone else noticed that the OP has yet to mention even one single name that he would like to get back in exchange for Hill? At least give some options of players you would like to get in return rather than just blindly saying you want to trade him if Tony stays around.

There really should be some sort of filter not allowing people to start new threads until they get to 1000 posts, or at least 500...and I feel this way even knowing that I have fewer than 100 posts currently.

[Strike]

If the spurs end up resigning Tony Parker this year, do you think that the spurs should trade George Hill? Are you for a trade yes/no and why/why not. If you are for the trade of hill what position would you want to upgrade.

I think we should trade him if we resign Parker. I would want to trade him because I am not a fan of playing tony and hill at the same time. Teams that play a small pg and sg just do not win. Just playing hill at the pg will not allow him very many minutes and that would just be a waste of talent. By trading him we can then upgrade talent of other positions. Also temple seems to have the potential to be a solid back-up pg.

http://incredimazing.com/static/media/2009/11/12/Coolstorybro/CoolStoryBro.jpg

[Josepatches_]

I just want the spurs to do everything we can to win a ring with timmy. I do not want to wait. I think you settling for mediocrity.




Sign James,Wade,KB or someone like them.Otherwise we aren't going to win more rings with Timmy. Mediocrity??? We can't be a contender forever.

[Blake]

So your telling me that the team is basically the same with hill on the court as they are with manu on the court. I guess hill is basically as good as manu. Thanks for letting me know, we should be a lock for the finals now.

No, since you made it a point that you do not want to see Parker and Hill playing together, I was telling you that Parker and Hill together on the court is not that far off statistically than Parker and Manu.


Just a thought, could it be that statistics are overrated and deceiving. Hopefully now you have come to that realization.

They could be if you don't like what they allude to and they don't jive with your argument.

I quickly came to the realization that you are an idiot. I'm just playing along for fun.

[Blake]

Who in their right mind would want to trade away Hill for a player that is making the same money and will most definitely not be as good a player?

Nathan89

[Blake]

Take a look at your poll results before you keep trying to justify trading him. :toast

He probably won't. He thinks stats can be overrated and deceiving.