Pacers have traded this pick to the Spurs for George Hill sources say

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not convinced DPG doesn't understand how he comes off. He does this shit all the time. No one is saying anything about a huge move, but the fact is that Hill is going to be overpaid next year barring an amazing CBA for the owners. He's the exact type of player that always ends up getting huge contracts and underperforms. They got excellent value for him.

[Hoops Czar]

Maybe. But that's $600K less, and Indy most likely doesn't know what they're getting with Anderson, thus they don't do the trade. Then we're stuck with the same logjam at 2 and no backup at 3. Sometimes you just need to take a gamble and see if it pays off.

Yes, but that's partially my point. Why should the Spurs make a deal for a player they know nothing about? Why wouldn't Indiana take a gamble on Anderson to see if it pays off? Indiana had nothing to lose and everything to gain from this trade.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes, but that's partially my point. Why should the Spurs make a deal for a player they know nothing about? Why wouldn't Indiana take a gamble on Anderson to see if it pays off? Indiana had nothing to lose and everything to gain from this trade.Why should the Pacers make a deal for a player they know nothing about?

[MannyIsGod]

Pretty god damn hard to say that trading hill for 2 draft picks and a prospect isn't going to help you rebuild. Exactly what type of value where you expecting for George Hill?

[MannyIsGod]

Why the hell would anyone say the Spurs know nothing about Leonard???

You think they make picks simply by pulling names out of a hat?

[ChumpDumper]

Why the hell would anyone say the Spurs know nothing about Leonard???

You think they make picks simply by pulling names out of a hat?They think the Spurs know less about basketball than they do.

[ElNono]

Yes, but that's partially my point. Why should the Spurs make a deal for a player they know nothing about? Why wouldn't Indiana take a gamble on Anderson to see if it pays off? Indiana had nothing to lose and everything to gain from this trade.

Because the Spurs know everything they need to know about the player they had (Hill), and they know that A) He won't help them get better and B) He might walk away after one season for nothing in return.

So they decided to take a gamble to see if this move improves them, and they get something in return for him. Anderson is on a rookie deal for 4 more years (2 of which are a team option, and last one is a QO).

[MannyIsGod]

I'm just floored by someone saying they can't see how this would help the team rebuild. Yeah, I have no idea how trading for a 20 year old, an 18 year old, and keeping your draft pick to pick up another 20 year old might just help with rebuilding.

[MannyIsGod]

And I don't even know how old that Euro that was part of the trade is but I'd assume he's not exactly old either.

[Hoops Czar]

I'm not convinced DPG doesn't understand how he comes off. He does this shit all the time. No one is saying anything about a huge move, but the fact is that Hill is going to be overpaid next year barring an amazing CBA for the owners. He's the exact type of player that always ends up getting huge contracts and underperforms. They got excellent value for him.

I think your exaggerating a bit. What makes you think he was in line for a huge pay day? I wouln't give him more than 4-5 mil/per. He has his limitations. Assuming Parker will be gone at seasons end, it's very doable.

[jjktkk]

Yes, but that's partially my point. Why should the Spurs make a deal for a player they know nothing about? Why wouldn't Indiana take a gamble on Anderson to see if it pays off? Indiana had nothing to lose and everything to gain from this trade.

You just contradicted yourself. Its okay for Indiana to take a gamble, but not the Spurs?

[MannyIsGod]

:lol I find it very funny you think George Hill was going to accept an offer less than the full MLE.

[ChumpDumper]

And I don't even know how old that Euro that was part of the trade is but I'd assume he's not exactly old either.Lorbek is like 27, but could conceivably play a limited role in the NBA. Certainly didn't hurt to get his rights.

Everyone else is young as shit. Isn't this what people have been bitching about for years?

[MannyIsGod]

I think Hill is a better player than Barbosa, for instance, who makes something like 7 or 8 million per.

[Hoops Czar]

:lol I find it very funny you think George Hill was going to accept an offer less than the full MLE.


That's what I think he's worth.

[MannyIsGod]

Great, do you know what OVERpaid means?

[MaNu4Tres]

Great, do you know what OVERpaid means?

:lol

[ace3g]

MaxSportsSA Maximum Sports
RC Buford says trading George Hill was one of the "most difficult" things the Spurs have done since he's been there.

[Hoops Czar]

You just contradicted yourself. Its okay for Indiana to take a gamble, but not the Spurs?

Wrong.... I said the Spurs shouldn't be the one taking the gamble. They're holding the cards. Indiana was never in a position to gamble.

[ElNono]

I think your exaggerating a bit. What makes you think he was in line for a huge pay day? I wouln't give him more than 4-5 mil/per. He has his limitations. Assuming Parker will be gone at seasons end, it's very doable.

We don't know what the next CBA is going to look like, so we don't know under which cap conditions we're going to be in. Between Manu, Tony and RJ (not counting TD since his contract would come off the books, IIRC) there's a lot of guaranteed money there. Hill would be a RFA after next season, meaning that if some team comes around and throws stupid money at him, the Spurs might not be even able to match and we end up empty handed.

[MannyIsGod]

If you look at the guards making between 8 million and 10 million a year its not hard to picture in that list. And to be honest, George Hill making 8 million on the Spurs makes me pretty sick.

[ElNono]

Wrong.... I said the Spurs shouldn't be the one taking the gamble. They're holding the cards. Indiana was never in a position to gamble.

Holding what cards? The 1st round exit with an aging core cards?

[HankChinaski]

Holding what cards? The 1st round exit with an aging core cards?

haha! Nice.

[ALVAREZ6]

How about this for a salary comparison: Bonner 3 million. Automatically means Hill gets at least double. Speaking of sick salaries...8 million for RJ, apparently Manu is only worth 3 million more :lol.

[ace3g]

One positive I can think of with the Hill trade; hopefully less chance of a 3 guard backcourt: The Spurs tried to use Hill as a SF in some situations in those 3 guard line ups. He did a decent enough job, but I felt sometimes the Spurs relied too much on his "length" in small ball line ups.

[Hoops Czar]

Great, do you know what OVERpaid means?

Hill's game has dropped off precipitously over the last few seasons. He won't make or break any roster. He's a bit player with some creative moments. His defense has declined since his rookie season as well as his ability to run the point. He's a pure shooter and that's it. Surely your kidding if you think a one-dimensional role player is going to cash in big. If thats the case, your looking at the next S-jax.

[Hoops Czar]

Holding what cards? The 1st round exit with an aging core cards?

George Hill. Hill's value was all the Spurs had left. You won't get much for Blair or Splitter alone.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

sorry to rain in your parade but that doesn't mean shit if we still have RJ and Bonner because they have corporate knowledge and Pop will send the rookie to the NBADL or the end of the bench for the next 2 years

RJ got benched in the post-season, so I think you're a little misguided here.

That, and the off-season hasn't even really started yet, let's see how the summer plays out.

[ElNono]

The reason owners want a hard cap is really to prevent themselves from constantly overpaying for marginal talent. They've done it over and over again.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Hill can be had for $4m. This team isn't improving with him in the roster. We might or might not improve with these kids. That's why you make the move.

[crc21209]

MaxSportsSA Maximum Sports
RC Buford says trading George Hill was one of the "most difficult" things the Spurs have done since he's been there.

If thats the case then they must be REALLY high on Leonard then.....

[ace3g]

Video: R.C. Buford Draft Interview http://j.mp/lSiG4Y

[ElNono]

George Hill. Hill's value was all the Spurs had left. You won't get much for Blair or Splitter alone.

Not true. Hill's value by himself could only fetch you small value like picks. He was only worth $2m (his salary for next season).

The Spurs true value is on Dice's contract. Since he's retiring, that's $5.2m we can use and that another team can wipe out of their books right after the trade. You add Bonner's $3m or Blair's $1m and now you have some money to make a move.

[ChumpDumper]

Hill's game has dropped off precipitously over the last few seasons. He won't make or break any roster. He's a bit player with some creative moments. His defense has declined since his rookie season as well as his ability to run the point. He's a pure shooter and that's it. Surely your kidding if you think a one-dimensional role player is going to cash in big. If thats the case, your looking at the next S-jax.Wow, this trade is a steal then!

[ElNono]

sorry to rain in your parade but that doesn't mean shit if we still have RJ and Bonner because they have corporate knowledge and Pop will send the rookie to the NBADL or the end of the bench for the next 2 years

I think you're spot on with Bonner. The fact that they've been actively trying to dump RJ's contract, to the point of even considering moving Parker to do so, tells me they're probably pretty fed up with him. That said, Leonard might not be ready to be a starter yet, but I'm pretty sure he'll get some decent playing time to develop behind RJ.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

We turned a guy who wasn't even a lock to be our first guard off the bench next season but would have been asking for MLE money next summer into three prospects.

Complaining about this trade is dumb.

[Hoops Czar]

Wow, this trade is a steal then!

I was never high on Hill but he had value on the trade market. Package him with a Blair and/or Splitter and the Spurs could have proven talent in return.

[SCdac]

we'll miss Hill's reliable free throw shooting that's for sure, that aspect of his game is being underrated IMO (given he'd always be a role player as long as the Big-3 exists, his playmaking can probably be replaced, and three point shooting is replaceable, but his penetration/explosiveness will be harder to replace).

Hill made just as many free-throws as Tony Parker last season, took the 3rd most amount of free-throws on the whole team (accounted for a good 25% of his scoring), and often times late in games, outside of Manu, he was our go-to FT shooter. I can't see Gary Neal putting up the same kind of production, perhaps James Anderson, but who knows.

Hill's man-to-man defense will be missed too, but feel like part of the reason he was tradable was his lack of size (not necessarily just height) for a 2-guard and when you have to put him on a forward for even 1-2 minutes it's just asking too much. Leonard too doesn't seem to have an exact position, but at least he's got legit size and girth for a SF, and seems like more of a natural swingman than say James Gist (hopefully at least).. Hill's inconsistency was a problem too,

absolute worst comes to worse, it's another James White-esque situation in which his athleticism and talent doesn't translate to the NBA and for some reason he doesn't help our team (curious: did he ever work out for the Spurs?), but he's more of a sure thing than white probably. best case scenario at least this season, we have our own Mbah a Moute somebody who can at least contribute defensively relatively soon, and is good for offensive rebounding (ie. extra possessions) on misses.

in all likelihood the Spurs aren't done making moves this offseason so it's hard to give them a final grade

[ALVAREZ6]

I was never high on Hill but he had value on the trade market. Package him with a Blair and/or Splitter and the Spurs could have proven talent in return.

Why not package Blair/RJ instead??? Or Splitter/RJ, if it guarantees a solid big man.

[SenorSpur]

Video: R.C. Buford Draft Interview http://j.mp/lSiG4Y

Thanks for posting this link!

[ElNono]

I was never high on Hill but he had value on the trade market. Package him with a Blair and/or Splitter and the Spurs could have proven talent in return.

Like Kevin Love? crofl

I don't get you. You just said Hill is an average talent, but you think it will fetch you a guy that very likely will get a max deal once his rookie salary runs out?

[MannyIsGod]

Hill's game has dropped off precipitously over the last few seasons. He won't make or break any roster. He's a bit player with some creative moments. His defense has declined since his rookie season as well as his ability to run the point. He's a pure shooter and that's it. Surely your kidding if you think a one-dimensional role player is going to cash in big. If thats the case, your looking at the next S-jax.

:lmao

Hills value dropped off yet you're upset about trading him?

The fuck?

BTW his value hasn't dropped off at all.

[ElNono]

we'll miss Hill's reliable free throw shooting that's for sure, that aspect of his game is being underrated IMO (given he'd always be a role player as long as the Big-3 exists, his playmaking can probably be replaced, and three point shooting is replaceable, but his penetration/explosiveness will be harder to replace).

Hill made just as many free-throws as Tony Parker last season, took the 3rd most amount of free-throws on the whole team (accounted for a good 25% of his scoring), and often times late in games, outside of Manu, he was our go-to FT shooter. I can't see Gary Neal putting up the same kind of production, perhaps James Anderson, but who knows.

Hill's man-to-man defense will be missed too, but feel like part of the reason he was tradable was his lack of size (not necessarily just height) for a 2-guard and when you have to put him on a forward for even 1-2 minutes it's just asking too much. Leonard too doesn't seem to have an exact position, but at least he's got legit size and girth for a SF, and seems like more of a natural swingman than say James Gist (hopefully at least).. Hill's inconsistency was a problem too,

absolute worst comes to worse, it's another James White-esque situation in which his athleticism and talent doesn't translate to the NBA and for some reason he doesn't help our team (curious: did he ever work out for the Spurs?), but he's more of a sure thing than white probably. best case scenario at least this season, we have our own Mbah a Moute somebody who can at least contribute defensively relatively soon, and is good for offensive rebounding (ie. extra possessions) on misses.

in all likelihood the Spurs aren't done making moves this offseason so it's hard to give them a final grade

Hill had nice qualities and he'll probably get better with an extended role in Indiana. It's a role the Spurs couldn't give him due to having two much more superior players in Manu and Tony, and a serviceable guy in Neal.

I don't even think that him being fairly mediocre playing PG was his fault. He's a SG that was playing out of position, so I can't really pin that on him. The only thing I can complain about with him is that he basically only showed up for 41 out of the 82 games. He was fairly consistently awful on the road all season long.

[ChumpDumper]

I was never high on Hill but he had value on the trade market. Package him with a Blair and/or Splitter and the Spurs could have proven talent in return.Their salaries limit what could be taken back.

One for three is quite good in this case.

[Mr. Body]

Amped about this trade. It helps both teams, actually. I won't miss Hill too much - we can cover for him - and Kawhi is a guy we've badly, badly needed for several years now.

[SenorSpur]

Their salaries limit what could be taken back.

One for three is quite good in this case.

Amen.

I only watched the first round and saw the Hill-for-Leonard swap. I didn't even know about the additional picks. Totally agree that one for three is very good.

[Capt Bringdown]

Based on a cursory glance at Leonard's info, it seems he's an energy player with poor lateral movement/speed. Sounds familiar...

[DesignatedT]

Based on a cursory glance at Leonard's info, it seems he's an energy player with poor lateral movement/speed. Sounds familiar...

lmao way to focus on the negative.

Finally get a long, athletic, wing defender and everybody still bitching about it. Everyone has been calling for this since Bruce retired.

and if you are somehow trying to compare him to RJ (which I am not sure who you are trying to relate him to) you couldn't be further from the truth because there games are nothing alike,

[Hoops Czar]

Like Kevin Love? crofl

I don't get you. You just said Hill is an average talent, but you think it will fetch you a guy that very likely will get a max deal once his rookie salary runs out?

No, I'm thinking in terms of right now. He could have gotten quality talent at the trade deadline for one last stand. It doesn't matter what I think of Hill, the rest of the league still values him. His youth and potential still drives up his trade value. Sending him in a package with Splitter and/or Blair will net quality talent in return. Duncan and Parker are off the books after this season. Don't tell me they won't have money to spend.

[Hoops Czar]

:lmao

Hills value dropped off yet you're upset about trading him?

The fuck?

BTW his value hasn't dropped off at all.

I wanted Hill gone... Just not for a Big Mac and fries.

[angelbelow]

lmao way to focus on the negative.

Finally get a long, athletic, wing defender and everybody still bitching about it. Everyone has been calling for this since Bruce retired.

and if you are somehow trying to compare him to RJ (which I am not sure who you are trying to relate him to) you couldn't be further from the truth because there games are nothing alike,

to be fair, his name is captainbringdown.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I'm thinking in terms of right now. He could have gotten quality talent at the trade deadline for one last stand. It doesn't matter what I think of Hill, the rest of the league still values him. His youth and potential still drives up his trade value. Sending him in a package with Splitter and/or Blair will net quality talent in return. Duncan and Parker are off the books after this season. Don't tell me they won't have money to spend.Parker isn't off the books.

[Hoops Czar]

Parker isn't off the books.

When Duncan retires, Parker is out the door.

[ElNono]

No, I'm thinking in terms of right now. He could have gotten quality talent at the trade deadline for one last stand. It doesn't matter what I think of Hill, the rest of the league still values him. His youth and potential still drives up his trade value. Sending him in a package with Splitter and/or Blair will net quality talent in return. Duncan and Parker are off the books after this season. Don't tell me they won't have money to spend.

Do you understand that you need to match salaries, right? You're talking $3m dollars combined for Hill/Blair, even less for Hill/Splitter. That's less than the MLE. What quality talent you expect to fetch for that?

And no, Parker signed a 4-year $50 million extension with the Spurs last October. He's not coming off the books anytime soon.

[ElNono]

When Duncan retires, Parker is out the door.

Even if he's 'out of the door' you need to trade him for an equal salary. At least for one more year.

[ChumpDumper]

When Duncan retires, Parker is out the door.lol why can't people admit they're wrong?

[ace3g]

Thanks for posting this link!

No problem,

Two things I like about what RC said:

1. They are finally acknowledging that they don't have the size at certain positions to contend against teams in the future.

2. Again they mention they will explore trades to improve the roster; "organizationally they will look in different areas maybe in the past we would have maintained a different position on our roster."

[SenorSpur]

I just hope the Spurs don't regret passing on Tyler Honeycutt.

[ChumpDumper]

I just hope the Spurs don't regret passing on Tyler Honeycutt.You and your bolded regrets.

[ElNono]

Actually, I take back that Hill/Splitter would be less. Splitter is set to make $3m plus $2m from Hill. That's $5m, which is still less than the MLE for last season.

[Hoops Czar]

Do you understand that you need to match salaries, right? You're talking $3m dollars combined for Hill/Blair, even less for Hill/Splitter. That's less than the MLE. What quality talent you expect to fetch for that?

And no, Parker signed a 4-year $50 million extension with the Spurs last October. He's not coming off the books anytime soon.

Parker is out the door when Duncan retires. Its a package deal. There are players. And Kevin Love for one. Players become available at the deadline every year so its impossible to tell this early on in the process.

[Hoops Czar]

lol why can't people admit they're wrong?

I will repeat. When Duncan retires, Parker is out the door.

[ChumpDumper]

Parker is out the door when Duncan retires. Its a package deal.According to whom?

[DesignatedT]

I will repeat. When Duncan retires, Parker is out the door.

and what if Duncan doesn't retire for 2 or 3 more seasons?

[Hoops Czar]

and what if Duncan doesn't retire for 2 or 3 more seasons?

Question... What's compelling Duncan to stay? Why should he add more wear and tear on his body and continue to struggle through the season when the Spurs aren't going to contend?

[ElNono]

Parker is out the door when Duncan retires. Its a package deal.

What's a 'package deal'? He's under contract for 4 more years for $50m. If he wants to 'walk out the door', he needs to be traded, meaning the Spurs need to take on as much salary.


There are players. And Kevin Love for one. Players become available at the deadline every year so its impossible to tell this early on in the process.

Kevin Love will be signing a max contract when his rookie contract is over. Before his contract is over, there's no way Minnesota is trading him for MLE money. I can't think you're serious even suggesting that.

And the Spurs will be keeping Splitter simply because a 7 footer for $3m/year is an absolute bargain. Ultimately, it's Splitter that has more value than Hill, which again undermines your point of Hill's perceived value.

The Spurs couldn't extract more that $2m from Hill. They got 2 picks and another player's rights for him. The players might pan out or not, but on it's face they got great value back from him.

[ChumpDumper]

Question... What's compelling Duncan to stay? Why should he add more wear and tear on his body and continue to struggle through the season when the Spurs aren't going to contend?According to whom?

Question: Package deal?

According to whom?

[DesignatedT]

Question... What's compelling Duncan to stay? Why should he add more wear and tear on his body and continue to struggle through the season when the Spurs aren't going to contend?

because he loves the game and gets paid millions of dollars? ... serious question?

[SenorSpur]

You and your bolded regrets.


I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that we were all supposed to have you screen our posts before submitting them. I'll make note of that, going forward.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware that we were all supposed to have you screen our posts before submitting them. I'll make note of that, going forward.You and your persecution complex.

[Hoops Czar]

What's a 'package deal'? He's under contract for 4 more years for $50m. If he wants to 'walk out the door', he needs to be traded, meaning the Spurs need to take on as much salary.

LOL, don't be a clown. The Spurs can get plenty in return for Parker. He's NOT untradeable and plenty of teams will be chomping at the bit to trade for Parker next offseason.


Kevin Love will be signing a max contract when his rookie contract is over. Before his contract is over, there's no way Minnesota is trading him for MLE money. I can't think you're serious even suggesting that.

I wouldn't put anything past David Kahn.


And the Spurs will be keeping Splitter simply because a 7 footer for $3m/year is an absolute bargain. Ultimately, it's Splitter that has more value than Hill, which again undermines your point of Hill's perceived value.

Splitter's value was overshot by a mile and a half this past offseason. A non scoring big who got bounced around by backups all season long when he saw the court isn't too awe inspiring. He has his work cut out for him next season.

[SenorSpur]

You and your persecution complex.

:lol

[Hoops Czar]

According to whom?

Question: Package deal?

According to whom?

According to big bird.

Parker thinks so too.

[ChumpDumper]

According to big bird.

Parker thinks so too.Link to Duncan saying it.

And explain your package deal bullshit.

[Hoops Czar]

because he loves the game and gets paid millions of dollars? ... serious question?

Duncan has never been about the money. He'll never have to lift a finger the rest of his life. His body and health is more important.

[ChumpDumper]

Duncan has never been about the money.Then why did he want so much of it?

Serious question.

[Hoops Czar]

Link to Duncan saying it.

And explain your package deal bullshit.

No point in keeping Parker around when Duncan retires. The wheels will be set in motion and the rebuilding process will begin. Parker knows this and so does the organization.

[ChumpDumper]

No point in keeping Parker around when Duncan retires. The wheels will be set in motion and the rebuilding process will begin. Parker knows this and so does the organization.So the organization just agreed to an extension for no reason.

:lol

[TDMVPDPOY]

if hill was lookin for the next big contract, how much did you guys think his actually worth? MLE? 6-7m?

[Hoops Czar]

Then why did he want so much of it?

Serious question.

Didn't he take less in choosing the Spurs over Orlando? (could be wrong) Didn't he restructure his contract to keep the big three intact? Duncan's only getting what one of the greatest power forwards in the history of the NBA deserves.

[ChumpDumper]

Didn't he take less in choosing the Spurs over Orlando? (could be wrong) Didn't he restructure his contract to keep the big three intact? Duncan's only getting what one of the greatest power forwards in the history of the NBA deserves.So he's about getting the money he deserves.

Nice walk back. :clap

[Hoops Czar]

So the organization just agreed to an extension for no reason.

:lol

They agreed on an extension so he wouldn't walk this offseason.

[ElNono]

LOL, don't be a clown. The Spurs can get plenty in return for Parker. He's NOT untradeable and plenty of teams will be chomping at the bit to trade for Parker next offseason.

And? They still need to take in as much salary back. Do you understand how trade works? He's not coming 'off the books'.

Truth be told, when the Duncan retires the Spurs might just need to tank if they want to get back to be a contending team. As much value as Tony has, he's not going to land you a franchise type of player, neither will an old Manu.


I wouldn't put anything past David Kahn.

There's a lot of things I wouldn't put past him, but trading the franchise players he's building his team around for George Hill and Dejuan Blair strikes me as beyond pipe dream. I mean, even the rumor that he would do such thing would automatically trigger almost every other team in the league offering a better trade.


Splitter's value was overshot by a mile and a half this past offseason. A non scoring big who got bounced around by backups all season long when he saw the court isn't too awe inspiring. He has his work cut out for him next season.

He's still an incredibly cheap talent for what he brings. Let me put it this way: Zaza Pachulia will make $4.7m next season. DeSagana Diop will make $6.9m. Andrea Bargnani will make $9m.

Being able to have a legit 7 footer for $3m in your roster in this league is an incredible bargain.

[Hoops Czar]

So he's about getting the money he deserves.

Nice walk back. :clap

What the hell are you talking about.

[ChumpDumper]

They agreed on an extension so he wouldn't walk this offseason.It's a four year extension.

[ChumpDumper]

What the hell are you talking about.I'm talking about your saying stupid shit then almost immediately contradicting yourself.

[FkLA]

How can yall niggas say with a straight face that this is a lateral move?Hill has been the 4th-5th best player on the team for the past two seasons. Neal is legit but he doesnt bring all the things Hill brought to the table. Anderson and this new rook are unknowns, we dont know how theyll adjust to the NBA yet.


So the organization just agreed to an extension for no reason.

:lol

Im sure the Spurs will love having a 31-32 yr old PG who relies on his speed and quickness, making 12-13 mill a yr when theyre looking to rebuild.

[ElNono]

If the 'wheels will be set in motion to rebuild', what's the point of paying a role player like Hill $4-5 million then?

[ChumpDumper]

Im sure the Spurs will love having a 31-32 yr old PG who relies on his speed and quickness, making 12-13 mill a yr when theyre looking to rebuild.You thought they would start Hill this season. I don't think you are the best person to declare what the Spurs are thinking.

[ElNono]

Hill has been the 4th-5th best player on the team for the past two seasons.

Not that hard when your teammates are Finley, Mason, Bogans, Bonner, RJ...

[Isitjustme?]

What a horrible trade. An unproven talent who can't shoot for a proven guy who's like 23 and makes next to nothing.

[DesignatedT]

Im sure the Spurs will love having a 31-32 yr old PG who relies on his speed and quickness, making 12-13 mill a yr when theyre looking to rebuild.

If he is still playing at a high level then they just might. Plus, If Manu and Duncan are off the books then Tony would not be holding them back financially to rebuild or sign new talent.

Look at Jason Kidd he is 38 and makes 9 mil a year.

[FkLA]

You thought they would start Hill this season. I don't think you are the best person to declare what the Spurs are thinking.

I dont know what the Spurs are thinking. Just like you dont. What I thought was that the Spurs were grooming him as a PG, and that imho the reins should be handed over to him. Which I still believe wouldve been a better move.

Do you think the Spurs should keep a 31-32 yr old Parker who relies on his speed and quickness and will make 12+ mill, when they are rebuilding??



If he is still playing at a high level then they just might. Plus, If Manu and Duncan are off the books then Tony would not be holding them back financially to rebuild or sign new talent.

Jason Kidd is 38 and makes 9 mil a year.

JKidd isnt on a rebuilding team like Parker will be in a couple of years.

[ChumpDumper]

I dont know what the Spurs are thinking. You got that right. :lol

[ElNono]

Do you think the Spurs should keep a 31-32 yr old Parker who relies on his speed and quickness and will make 12+ mill, when they are rebuilding??

Why can't the Spurs trade for Hill then? He's just not what the Spurs need right now to attempt to improve.

[ChumpDumper]

Why can't the Spurs trade for Hill then?Nah, they'll need a point guard then.

[DesignatedT]

I dont know what the Spurs are thinking. Just like you dont. What I thought was that the Spurs were grooming him as a PG, and that imho the reins should be handed over to him. Which I still believe wouldve been a better move.

Do you think the Spurs should keep a 31-32 yr old Parker who relies on his speed and quickness and will make 12+ mill, when they are rebuilding??




JKidd isnt on a rebuilding team like Parker will be in a couple of years.

In a couple of years? In that case he will only have 1 year left on his contract that is guaranteed. It would be very easy to move a 12.5 mil/yr expiring contract if they wish or the Spurs to let him ride that last year out on the "rebuilding squad" and let him come off the books completely. They have actually set it up pretty nicely for the future....

[FkLA]

Not that hard when your teammates are Finley, Mason, Bogans, Bonner, RJ...

Yea I guess he was just the 4th best player by default. He wasnt one of the top bench players in the league or anything. He didnt play a big role in the Spurs sole playoff series win the past 3 years. He didnt bring things to the table that no guard outside of Manu&Tony can bring to the team.



You got that right. :lol

Im assuming you find it funny because you know what theyre thinking and I dont?

[ChumpDumper]

Im assuming you find it funny because you know what theyre thinking and I dont?Hey, you don't know what I'm thinking either. :lmao

[ElNono]

Yea I guess he was just the 4th best player by default. He wasnt one of the top bench players in the league or anything. He didnt play a big role in the Spurs sole playoff series win the past 3 years. He didnt bring things to the table that no guard outside of Manu&Tony can bring to the team.

When was he one of the top bench players in the league? Was he ever even in serious contention for 6th man of the year?

As well as he played against the Mavericks, he played just as badly getting completely obliterated by Dragic in the next round. And sure, he has had good games as a Spur. Especially at home. He just wasn't anything more than a decent role player though.

[FkLA]

Hey, you don't know what I'm thinking either. :lmao

Hilarious. Your mind games intimidate me.


Why can't the Spurs trade for Hill then? He's just not what the Spurs need right now to attempt to improve.

But trading him for a young rookie was what the Spurs needed to attempt to improve in preparation for a last stand? Perhaps the Spurs wouldnt have improved by keeping Hill but atleast you know what you get with him, Anderson and Leonard are unproven at the NBA level. Those two players still need time to develope, time both Manu and Tim dont have.


In a couple of years? In that case he will only have 1 year left on his contract that is guaranteed. It would be very easy to move a 12.5 mil/yr expiring contract if they wish or the Spurs to let him ride that last year out on the "rebuilding squad" and let him come off the books completely. They have actually set it up pretty nicely for the future....

Thats the point, he will be gone before his deal is done. Chump insists he wont because they signed him to a 4-yr extension and because nobody knows what the Spurs are thinking.

[ChumpDumper]

So now you say you know what the Spurs are thinking. Just like earlier today with Hill. :lmao

[DesignatedT]

I like George, always will but the Spurs are addressing issues with there squad that need to be addressed and as much as I hate to see him go he really doesn't bring much that Anderson or Neal can't bring.

Getting size at every position is key to building a team and we didn't have that and Hill was part of that problem (undersized 2).

He might have been our best bench player the last couple of years and that could be part of the reason our last 2 playoff appearances have resulted in a first round exit and a 2nd round sweep. He simply played too many minutes for a marginal talent player here.

[Hoops Czar]

And? They still need to take in as much salary back. Do you understand how trade works? He's not coming 'off the books'.

Truth be told, when the Duncan retires the Spurs might just need to tank if they want to get back to be a contending team. As much value as Tony has, he's not going to land you a franchise type of player, neither will an old Manu.

Who said anything about franchise players? Its not as simple as matching salaries. And who said Parker would be alone in a deal? There are tons of possible scenarios. And when Duncan retires, the Spurs will tank the next few seasons. At least, I don't see our 3 million dollar 7-foot deal maker replacing Duncan any time soon.


There's a lot of things I wouldn't put past him, but trading the franchise players he's building his team around for George Hill and Dejuan Blair strikes me as beyond pipe dream. I mean, even the rumor that he would do such thing would automatically trigger almost every other team in the league offering a better trade.

Until it happens. He flirted with it once.




He's still an incredibly cheap talent for what he brings. Let me put it this way: Zaza Pachulia will make $4.7m next season. DeSagana Diop will make $6.9m. Andrea Bargnani will make $9m.

Being able to have a legit 7 footer for $3m in your roster in this league is an incredible bargain.

He's only incredibly bargain if he plays and contributes on a regular basis. If he's riding the pine, he's useless. I'm not one for collecting bigs just for the sake of having bigs on the roster. For a player averaging 1.7 minutes/game, that's about right. He's still got a lot to prove and as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on him.

Not sure why you included Bargnani. He's at level Splitter can't touch.

[FkLA]

When was he one of the top bench players in the league? Was he ever even in serious contention for 6th man of the year?

As well as he played against the Mavericks, he played just as badly getting completely obliterated by Dragic in the next round. And sure, he has had good games as a Spur. Especially at home. He just wasn't anything more than a decent role player though.

He finished 8th in 6th Year of the Man candidates just this past season. Id consider that one of the top bench players in the league.

Just like Tony Parker got obliterated by Michael Conley? What Spurs player hasnt been outplayed in a series at one point or another. He was a very solid role player, not just a decent one.

[ElNono]

But trading him for a young rookie was what the Spurs needed to attempt to improve in preparation for a last stand? Perhaps the Spurs wouldnt have improved by keeping Hill but atleast you know what you get with him, Anderson and Leonard are unproven at the NBA level. Those two players still need time to develope, time both Manu and Tim dont have.

Because they know what they get with him, and they know what the ceiling is with him on the roster, they rather gamble and see if the luck out.
With Hill the ceiling is 2nd round. With these unproven guys, it could be better or could be worse. But at least you do have a shot at better.

[DesignatedT]

Thats the point, he will be gone before his deal is done. Chump insists he wont because they signed him to a 4-yr extension and because nobody knows what the Spurs are thinking.

I don't think him not finishing his contract here is some guarantee.

[Hoops Czar]

It's a four year extension.

Parker wouldn't sign a one year extension.

[joshdaboss]

I like George, always will but the Spurs are addressing issues with there squad that need to be addressed and as much as I hate to see him go he really doesn't bring much that Anderson or Neal can't bring..

I totally see your point here. Just kidding, neither of them play point guard.

[jesterbobman]

To make some people like it more and others hate it more

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2011/insider/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=draftbreakdown-110624

[ChumpDumper]

Parker wouldn't sign a one year extension.So now you know what Tony Parker is thinking.

Buncha psychics here.

[DesignatedT]

I totally see your point here. Just kidding, neither of them play point guard.

That's the best part of the trade tbh. We don't have to watch him try to run point anymore because he was pretty fucking bad at it. Hopefully we can finally sign a true PG via free agency.

[joshdaboss]

That's the best part of the trade tbh. We don't have to watch him try to run point anymore because he was pretty fucking bad at it. Hopefully we can finally sign a true PG via free agency.

What was their record when Tony Parker went down and Hill took over PG again? I would just like you to refresh my memory on that.

[ChumpDumper]

What was their record when Tony Parker went down and Hill took over PG again? I would just like you to refresh my memory on that.You mean when Manu ran the point?

[joshdaboss]

You mean when Manu ran the point?

That is funny, I could have sworn I heard them say "starting at point guard, George Hill".

[FkLA]

Because they know what they get with him, and they know what the ceiling is with him on the roster, they rather gamble and see if the luck out.
With Hill the ceiling is 2nd round. With these unproven guys, it could be better or could be worse. But at least you do have a shot at better.

You have a shot at better with any move you make.

I'll take my chances with a player who has grown into a Top 10 bench player and the 4th best player on the team over two guys that have yet to prove themselves though. Its very unlikely Anderson and Leonard will contribute as much as George couldve this upcoming season. It'll essentially be their rookie season for both of them. Thats why I wouldve preferred a Parker trade, he couldve netted an established player. Not players whom we have to pray translate their game well into the NBA.

[DesignatedT]

What was their record when Tony Parker went down and Hill took over PG again? I would just like you to refresh my memory on that.

Are you talking about 2 years ago because Tony only missed like 3 games this season...

and if you are talking about 2 years ago.. are you talking about right after all-star break where Manu was having one of the best stretches of games in his entire career?

You realize Manu was actually running the point right?

[ChumpDumper]

That is funny, I could have sworn I heard them say "starting at point guard, George Hill".You swore the Lakers never parted ways with Fisher.

[joshdaboss]

You swore the Lakers never parted ways with Fisher.

Correct. Fisher parted ways with the Lakers.

[ChumpDumper]

Correct. Fisher parted ways with the Lakers.And the Lakers parted ways with him.

[FkLA]

I don't think him not finishing his contract here is some guarantee.

Well obviously nothing is a guarantee. But it'd be the smart move and something the Spurs will pursue.

[joshdaboss]

And the Lakers parted ways with him.

Incorrect.

[ChumpDumper]

Incorrect.:lol

Of course it's correct.

Thanks for being a dumbass in two threads though.

[ElNono]

He finished 8th in 6th Year of the Man candidates just this past season. Id consider that one of the top bench players in the league.

So he was never in serious contention for 6th man of the year... The guy received 10 votes, not even a single 1st place vote :lol


Just like Tony Parker got obliterated by Michael Conley? What Spurs player hasnt been outplayed in a series at one point or another. He was a very solid role player, not just a decent one.

The difference is that Tony has won series being the focal point for us. At the very best, George was great for a number of games playing as a role player.

You're not going to get me to talk shit about George. I already stated what's the only beef I could possibly have with him and that's his inconsistency on the road. I appreciate the time he gave us. Unfortunately, at this time the team needs to try to improve in whatever way possible, and due to his salary matching well to make a trade for picks and the logjam we have at SG, he was the guy that could give us the better return to move up in this draft and fetch some talent.

[Hoops Czar]

So now you know what Tony Parker is thinking.

Buncha psychics here.

Would you pass up guaranteed money?

[ChumpDumper]

Would you pass up guaranteed money?You just said he would.

[ElNono]

Who said anything about franchise players? Its not as simple as matching salaries. And who said Parker would be alone in a deal? There are tons of possible scenarios. And when Duncan retires, the Spurs will tank the next few seasons. At least, I don't see our 3 million dollar 7-foot deal maker replacing Duncan any time soon.

You're talking about the Spurs trading Tony (and seemingly more players) once Duncan retires. In order to do that they need to take in just as much in salaries. At least for one season (provided they're getting back all expiring contracts). So Tony, or the value of his contract isn't coming off the book when Duncan walks. There's no such thing as a 'package deal'.
If you don't understand how the CBA works, just say so.


Until it happens. He flirted with it once.

Not for Blair/Hill type of talent.


He's only incredibly bargain if he plays and contributes on a regular basis. If he's riding the pine, he's useless. I'm not one for collecting bigs just for the sake of having bigs on the roster. For a player averaging 1.7 minutes/game, that's about right. He's still got a lot to prove and as far as I'm concerned, the jury's still out on him.

No, he's a bargain because there's a salary cap, and you have to fill your roster with that monetary limit. And you have to have a roster with enough players on each position that allows you to have a competitive team. I don't know if Splitter will evolve into anything more than the 3rd/4th big in the team. The point is that most 3rd/4th bigs in this league make more money than that (excluding rookie scale contracts), especially young 7 footers that still have a good chunk of their career ahead of them.


Not sure why you included Bargnani. He's at level Splitter can't touch.

Bargnani is among the worst number 1 picks in recent NBA history. He's a 7 footer that can barely grab 5 boards a game, soft, terrible defender, and in 5 seasons has yet to play 82 games.

I don't know if Splitter will ever be better or not than him, especially since he's never going to be the focal point of the offense inside as long as Duncan is around. The point is, big man are hard to find, and are normally pretty expensive. That's what I was trying to illustrate.

[ElNono]

You have a shot at better with any move you make.

Exactly. It happened to be George because Indiana was interested and his salary matched the value Indiana wanted for the picks.


I'll take my chances with a player who has grown into a Top 10 bench player and the 4th best player on the team over two guys that have yet to prove themselves though. Its very unlikely Anderson and Leonard will contribute as much as George couldve this upcoming season. It'll essentially be their rookie season for both of them. Thats why I wouldve preferred a Parker trade, he couldve netted an established player. Not players whom we have to pray translate their game well into the NBA.

It might be unlikely. But to have a shot at the possibility that they might bring more, you have to make the move. I'm also not sold that Tony is scot-free yet. I still think that if somebody wants to take him alongside RJ, the Spurs might oblige. I also think the Spurs will use the Dice contract to try to get more talent at other positions.

[joshdaboss]

Bargnani is among the worst number 1 picks in recent NBA history. He's a 7 footer that can barely grab 5 boards a game, soft, terrible defender, and in 5 seasons has yet to play 82 games.

21PPG says hi.

[ElNono]

21PPG says hi.

22 wins says hello.

[will_spurs]

This is obviously a great trade. Hill is a decent player, he could even be a starter in the right situation (which he might actually find in Indiana), but he was definitely expendable on the current Spurs roster, and since he couldn't be overpaid due to the next CBA, he was likely to be cut.

It's a win-win for both sides. The Spurs finally do something to draft a defensive minded 3. Granted, he might not pan out to the savior, but no risk, no glory. The Spurs also get the rights to 2 promising players in the deal.

Hill goes home, where he can get a larger fanbase, more endorsements, and a nice fat contract. He gets to play for a team that's going in the right direction.

Bird/Pacers get a player they always wanted to have on their roster, with a good chance of being able to sign him long term if they want to.

Only 2 persons don't like this move: the 2 members of the San Antonio chapter of the Church of George Hill. Surprise surprise.

(by the way, it looks like George Hill will be parting ways with the Spurs... just saying)

[Hoops Czar]

You're talking about the Spurs trading Tony (and seemingly more players) once Duncan retires. In order to do that they need to take in just as much in salaries. At least for one season (provided they're getting back all expiring contracts). So Tony, or the value of his contract isn't coming off the book when Duncan walks. There's no such thing as a 'package deal'.
If you don't understand how the CBA works, just say so.

Its all semantics as far as I'm concerned. The package deal is a metaphor. When Duncan retires, the Spurs will work hard to trade Parker and they will find plenty of suitors. If you don't understand satire, just say so. Duncan's retirement signifies the end of an era and with or without Parker, the Spurs aren't contenders. Non-contenders don't like to haul around $50 million dollar contracts on their roster.


Not for Blair/Hill type of talent.

Not Necessarily. If Kahn doesn't see Love as a player he can keep, he won't think twice about shopping him. Other teams would certainly show interest but most contenders might shy away because he hasn't shown the ability to raise his game to the next level to create more of a winning atmosphere in Minny. The Spurs could have paired Love with Duncan and given them that rebounding presence they soarly missed in the post season. It might have prolonged Duncan's career beyond next year. But now, I see no reason for Duncan to continue to grind it out a few seasons and beyond with the team out of contention.


No, he's a bargain because there's a salary cap, and you have to fill your roster with that monetary limit. And you have to have a roster with enough players on each position that allows you to have a competitive team. I don't know if Splitter will evolve into anything more than the 3rd/4th big in the team. The point is that most 3rd/4th bigs in this league make more money than that (excluding rookie scale contracts), especially young 7 footers that still have their a good chunk of their career ahead of them.

Along those lines, I would say Mahimni was even a bigger steal last year. Talk about a bargain buster. A player who never played, but came cheaper than most 3rd/4th bigs and helped the Spurs fill out the roster and field a competitive team.:rolleyes


Bargnani is among the worst number 1 picks in recent NBA history. He's a 7 footer that can barely grab 5 boards a game, soft, terrible defender, and in 5 seasons has yet to play 82 games.

I don't know if Splitter will ever be better or not than him, especially since he's never going to be the focal point of the offense inside as long as Duncan is around. The point is, big man are hard to find, and are normally pretty expensive. That's what I was trying to illustrate.

What a bunch of malarkey. Bargnani is 25 years old and has steadily gotten better each season. He averaged over 21 ppg in 2011 and Splitter isn't exactly a picture of health himself. Its tough to get rebounds when your constantly playing on the perimeter. Both players have flaws but Barg is the better player.

I can't take you serious when you make silly comparisons like this even if its in aggregate. Splitter struggles to compete on the court against backups. Even when Duncan retires and with increased playing time, I sincerely doubt Splitter will ever be the focal point of the offense.

And bigs aren't hard to find. Quality bigs are hard to find.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously? Blair and Hill for Love?

I thought you said quality bigs were hard to find.

[Texas_Ranger]

They also got Erazem Lorbek who is a top 5 center in Europe.

[TDMVPDPOY]

They also got Erazem Lorbek who is a top 5 center in Europe.

and how long do we have to wait for him to come over? i hate the waiting game

javtokas, scola, splitter, now this clown... :(

we need BIGs to help duncan man down low which is not going to be addressed with bonner and blair...

[ChumpDumper]

and how long do we have to wait for him to come over? i hate the waiting game

javtokas, scola, splitter, now this clown... :(

we need BIGs to help duncan man down low which is not going to be addressed with bonner and blair...I'm glad he's not coming over now.

[Texas_Ranger]

and how long do we have to wait for him to come over? i hate the waiting game

javtokas, scola, splitter, now this clown... :(

we need BIGs to help duncan man down low which is not going to be addressed with bonner and blair...

Well the Spurs should call him, I'm sure he'd like to play in the NBA cause he said so.

[Josepatches_]

With Gary Neal's emergence and James Anderson's potential, Hill became expendable. I'm not angry at this. But I do appreciate everything George did here. I hope he reaches his full potential in Indiana. Class act, hard worker :toast



Hill is better than Neal or Anderson.Expendable? Anderson or Neal were more expendable to me.

We'll see what happens.Indy has too many weapons so Hill is not going to improve his numbers but he has the potencial to do it.

I don't like this move at all.We are going to be slower in the backcourt.Hill wasn't the best defensive guard of the league but now we are even worse.

[DPG21920]

Just a few more points then I'm done with this for a little while:

1) How I come off? How about how everyone comes off? I actually discuss basketball on a regular basis unlike guys like Chump who's only goal is pick petty arguments on semantics and has hardly any well thought out ideas or opinions of his own. Manny, you, much like many others, can come off condescending as he'll quite often. Just like with the first thing you said about me in this thread, you completely missed the boat on what I said and meant. You took one obscure thing and tried to piece that together while ignoring all my other posts on the subject.

2) The FO can make massive mistakes and obviously not see them when sometimes fans do (RJ contract for example) so it's kind of dumb to keep throwing around the "lol Internet GM" stuff. Of course we don't know more than them, but that doesn't mean posters haven't been right about things. I can understand scoffing someone that just bitches or is a homer, but when people make legit arguments it's lame (it's mostly Chump that does it) to pick an argument over semantics and then having no real opinion of your own.

2) Again, it's like people have never been around basketball or ST ever. Just because someone is questioning something to a certain degree (in this case the Hill trade and what direction that leads to) doesn't mean they hate. There are logical arguments to be made both ways and when you so fiercely defend something or scoff something that just happened, you leave no wiggle room. In most cases no one is 100% right with their inintial assessment, but most try and act like it. He'll I've done that. But I'm learning how it likely makes you look rash.

3) I don't get the whole "I can't see how people don't see this as helping to rebuild...and we got a lottery pick for Hill" thing. First off, does Hill not help you rebuild as much as any other young guy? It's not like the Spurs dumped an aging vet for Leonard, they dumped a young asset. I fully understand the logic of the contract and log jam reasoning and I never complained about the trade. I am not in love with it, but not fully being on board or not seeing the big picture does not equal hate. Also, the "we got a lottery pick" argument, while true, doesn't really hold weight IMO. It's an awful draft where people adjust that 15th pick to hold a value of a mid-20's pick in a normal draft. I also dont care where guys are drafted because it doesn't guarantee anything. All that matters is can you play and we will find that part out.

[Josepatches_]

They also got Erazem Lorbek who is a top 5 center in Europe.

:

I would say he's not a top10

To me he's not a top5 in the spanish league.Even i would say he's not the best center of his team.

Anyway top5 or top10 imo he's not an nba caliber player.He has talent to score in the paint,great moves in the paint but he's pretty soft and mentally he's out of the game easily.

[mystargtr34]

Just a few more points then I'm done with this for a little while:

1) How I come off? How about how everyone comes off? I actually discuss basketball on a regular basis unlike guys like Chump who's only goal is pick petty arguments on semantics and has hardly any well thought out ideas or opinions of his own. Manny, you, much like many others, can come off condescending as he'll quite often. Just like with the first thing you said about me in this thread, you completely missed the boat on what I said and meant. You took one obscure thing and tried to piece that together while ignoring all my other posts on the subject.

2) Again, it's like people have never been around basketball or ST ever. Just because someone is questioning something to a certain degree (in this case the Hill trade and what direction that leads to) doesn't mean they hate. There are logical arguments to be made both ways and when you so fiercely defend something or scoff something that just happened, you leave no wiggle room. In most cases no one is 100% right with their inintial assessment, but most try and act like it. He'll I've done that. But I'm learning how it likely makes you look rash.

3) I don't get the whole "I can't see how people don't see this as helping to rebuild...and we got a lottery pick for Hill" thing. First off, does Hill not help you rebuild as much as any other young guy? It's not like the Spurs dumped an aging vet for Leonard, they dumped a young asset. I fully understand the logic of the contract and log jam reasoning and I never complained about the trade. I am not in love with it, but not fully being on board or not seeing the big picture does not equal hate. Also, the "we got a lottery pick" argument, while true, doesn't really hold weight IMO. It's an awful draft where people adjust that 15th pick to hold a value of a mid-20's pick in a normal draft. I also dont care where guys are drafted because it doesn't guarantee anything. All that matters is can you play and we will find that part out.

Imo Anderson has a higher potential as a defensive 2-guard 1) because he is 3-4 inches taller and has a better standing reach by around 5 inches and 2) he seems to move his feet better laterally. George was always over rated defensivly due to his long arms ..but he had real trouble movong sideways and struggled to manouvre around screens and stay in front of people. Plus he is just too small to height wise and weight wise to guard legit 2's if you want to have a good defensive team.. it just creates too many easy opportunities for any opposition with a decent 2.

The Spurs will miss his ability to get to the FT line and put pressure on the defense consistently.. So hopefully JA can do that a little bit.

[mystargtr34]

I was ment to quote josepatches post.. on iphone so cbf editing it.

[DPG21920]

Yes I know there are 2 #2's but cant correct on iPhone lol

[Mr. Body]

How I come off? How about how everyone comes off? I actually discuss basketball on a regular basis unlike guys like Chump who's only goal is pick petty arguments on semantics and has hardly any well thought out ideas or opinions of his own.

Chump knows his stuff, but he really does contribute to a poor message board in general.

[TDMVPDPOY]

The Spurs will miss his ability to get to the FT line and put pressure on the defense consistently.. So hopefully JA can do that a little bit.

it was mainly ghill and ginoboli shooting the tech fouls, now we need to find another consistent shooter for freebies

[mystargtr34]

Yes I know there are 2 #2's but cant correct on iPhone lol

Huh

[Muser]

Won't know if it's a good trade until we see them play, but I won't really miss Hill. Sucked too much on the road.

[DPG21920]

Huh

In my post where I used numbers to list, I have "2)" twice. So it goes 1,2,2,3

[z0sa]

I'll miss ya Hill, and many ladies will miss your monstrous third arm

[DPG21920]

Maybe I didn't articulate my point well:

The trade itself is fine IMO because Hill, while very good, isn't going to turn into one of those "holy sh*t we messed up trades". So in a bubble, the trade is fine and the spurs don't really miss when it's in the lottery range (weak draft or not). We won't know if Leonard is solid until he plays but even if he's a bust it doesn't set any thing back in a major way. It will be a blow to both contending and rebuilding but not a massive one either way.

But things don't happen in a bubble so the issue is if you gave up a rotation player on a contending team for some 19 year olds that might not be ready to contribute (maybe too young) or might not get an opportunity (RJ can't be moved) then you likely stayed put or moved backwards from a contention standpoint.

I know there is time, but swapping young player for young player doesn't really send you full steam into rebuild mode while at the same time it doesn't look to help you push forward from a contention stand point.

Thats all I said about the situation. Not that I hate the trade itself, it's just that when you move a young productive rotational asset, you would like to see it clearly be on a path to accomplish something either way (rebuild or contend).

Still plenty of time to go either way, but when evaluating this draft which is what happened, there are no real answers to anything.

[jjktkk]

it was mainly ghill and ginoboli shooting the tech fouls, now we need to find another consistent shooter for freebies

Say Hello to Neal and Anderson.

[jjktkk]

Maybe I didn't articulate my point well:

The trade itself is fine IMO because Hill, while very good, isn't going to turn into one of those "holy sh*t we messed up trades". So in a bubble, the trade is fine and the spurs don't really miss when it's in the lottery range (weak draft or not). We won't know if Leonard is solid until he plays but even if he's a bust it doesn't set any thing back in a major way. It will be a blow to both contending and rebuilding but not a massive one either way.

But things don't happen in a bubble so the issue is if you gave up a rotation player on a contending team for some 19 year olds that might not be ready to contribute (maybe too young) or might not get an opportunity (RJ can't be moved) then you likely stayed put or moved backwards from a contention standpoint.

I know there is time, but swapping young player for young player doesn't really send you full steam into rebuild mode while at the same time it doesn't look to help you push forward from a contention stand point.

Thats all I said about the situation. Not that I hate the trade itself, it's just that when you move a young productive rotational asset, you would like to see it clearly be on a path to accomplish something either way (rebuild or contend).

Still plenty of time to go either way, but when evaluating this draft which is what happened, there are no real answers to anything.

Valid points. But, imo, Pop and RC wouldn't had made this move if they didn't believe Neal and Anderson couldn't handle increased roles. With both Pop and RC being extremely fond of George, this trade should also tell you the confidence they have in Neal and to a lesser degree, Anderson, to fill the void of Hill's trade to the Pacers.

[hater]

Maybe I didn't articulate my point well:

The trade itself is fine IMO because Hill, while very good, isn't going to turn into one of those "holy sh*t we messed up trades". So in a bubble, the trade is fine and the spurs don't really miss when it's in the lottery range (weak draft or not). We won't know if Leonard is solid until he plays but even if he's a bust it doesn't set any thing back in a major way. It will be a blow to both contending and rebuilding but not a massive one either way.

But things don't happen in a bubble so the issue is if you gave up a rotation player on a contending team for some 19 year olds that might not be ready to contribute (maybe too young) or might not get an opportunity (RJ can't be moved) then you likely stayed put or moved backwards from a contention standpoint.

I know there is time, but swapping young player for young player doesn't really send you full steam into rebuild mode while at the same time it doesn't look to help you push forward from a contention stand point.

Thats all I said about the situation. Not that I hate the trade itself, it's just that when you move a young productive rotational asset, you would like to see it clearly be on a path to accomplish something either way (rebuild or contend).

Still plenty of time to go either way, but when evaluating this draft which is what happened, there are no real answers to anything.

pretty much. As of right now we are a worse team and I did not want that for Duncan's last season. In the long term we MIGHT be better off, but coming into NEXT SEASON we are a worse team, not to mention Dice is gone and we haven't got a replacement.

this is the kinda move the Front Office said: forget Duncan, forget Manu, forget the fans. The future of the business is first.

[jjktkk]

I totally see your point here. Just kidding, neither of them play point guard.

Just like Hill.

[cheguevara]

goddam what is this river of tears. Grow some balls. it was just George Hill. Dude had potential but nothing special. He had plenty of chances to fluorish and in the end was mediocre, mas o menos, so-so.

don't get me wrong. Hill was still the 4th best Spur. But that's because we have a shit team.

[Buddy Holly]

it was mainly ghill and ginoboli shooting the tech fouls, now we need to find another consistent shooter for freebies

Cough"Neal"Cough!

[MaNu4Tres]

But things don't happen in a bubble so the issue is if you gave up a rotation player on a contending team for some 19 year olds that might not be ready to contribute(maybe too young) or might not get an opportunity (RJ can't be moved) then you likely stayed put or moved backwards from a contention standpoint.


I get this point you are trying to make but I don't agree with your implication that it's a relevant issue when the Spurs have NBA proven players in Neal and Anderson ready and more than capable to fill in the void at the SG spot (where Hill played 80% of his minutes).

Spurs won't lose much if at all with Hill being gone from an offensive perspective because of Neal and Anderson deserving and worthy of more minutes and being just as good or better shooters than Hill (Hill was more of a spot up shooter than anything else). Hill was expendable, even if he was a rotation player last year.

That being said, I don't see this team taking a step back from offensive perspective with Hill being gone (Spurs have a lot of weapons outside of Neal/Anderson as well). Furthermore, the Spurs improved from a defensive perspective as they drafted the best small forward in the draft that happens to be very defensive oriented and gifted (6'7" frame- 7'3" wingspan). And at the same time, the move allows Anderson to get quality burn now-- who is a damn good defender and has to size to guard wings more effectively.

Last year, the Spurs used Neal and Hill quite often at the 2/3 spot behind the Jefferson-Ginobili-Parker starting lineup. Neal and Hill were asked and forced to guard long 2's and 3's quite often and their size was a glaring weakness from a defensive perspective (Sam Young, Vasquez, Allen had a field day in the first round). With this move, Spurs now have minutes available to integrate wings w/ size (Leonard/Anderson) into the rotation. And they still have Neal in their arsenal as well.

I don't see how this sets the Spurs back for now or for the future. If Spurs traded Hill for a questionable late first rounder ( Jimmy Butler) and didn't have quality depth at the two spot (Neal/Anderson) then I'd agree with you. But that is simply not the case. IMO

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

goddam what is this river of tears. Grow some balls. it was just George Hill. Dude had potential but nothing special. He had plenty of chances to fluorish and in the end was mediocre, mas o menos, so-so.

don't get me wrong. Hill was still the 4th best Spur. But that's because we have a shit team.

This shouldn't be surprising. It's like when Malik left, the blind homers who thought he was worth a top 5 pick or a trade for Kobe are getting bent.

Meanwhile:


From CNN/SI:
"Kawhi Leonard, 6-7 sophomore forward, San Diego State. The kid is a complete gym rat. They say he's going into the gym at night, getting janitors to open the place up for him, so he's going to work hard to get better. I heard during a workout in Washington he just destroyed Jordan Hamilton. About halfway through, Hamilton quit because he couldn't get his shot off. [Hamilton told reporters that he felt dizzy during the June 7 workout.] "

[DPG21920]

It doesn't necessarily set them back. It doesn't necessarily move the forward. That is the only point I'm really making. There are definitely arguments to why they might be slightly better off or slightly worse. But either way, they gave up a solid young asset and the team right now or in the future doesn't have a pretty clear path on improving. Regardless of whether or not Hill was expendable or you think the Spurs marginally improve, the fact is the Spurs had to make one of two decisions: Keep going all in to become a true contender for Tims last year or blow it up. The moves in the draft really didn't even begin to accomplish either.

Its not a small tweak needed to truly contend or rebuild IMO. I would rather them push hard to contend but in reality I don't care either way as long as they don't just shuffle their feet.

[cheguevara]

This shouldn't be surprising. It's like when Malik left, the blind homers who thought he was worth a top 5 pick or a trade for Kobe are getting bent.


:lmao

[MaNu4Tres]

It doesn't necessarily set them back. It doesn't necessarily move the forward. That is the only point I'm really making. There are definitely arguments to why they might be slightly better off or slightly worse. But either way, they gave up a solid young asset and the team right now or in the future doesn't have a pretty clear path on improving. Regardless of whether or not Hill was expendable or you think the Spurs marginally improve, the fact is the Spurs had to make one of two decisions: Keep going all in to become a true contender for Tims last year or blow it up. The moves in the draft really didn't even begin to accomplish either.

Its not a small tweak needed to truly contend or rebuild IMO. I would rather them push hard to contend but in reality I don't care either way as long as they don't just shuffle their feet.

I don't think there is or was a huge move to make that would catapult them into clear cut favorites ala summer of 10' Heat. That's not going to happen.

Spurs are right behind the elite of the league. One or two subtle moves to improve their defense could do the trick. Hell look at the Mavs, last year they were one and done and the next year they win the title with the addition of Chandler and subtraction of Beaubois/Butler.

[Mr. Body]

Wow. We finally get a potentially stud defender at the SF, a guy with the length to actually trouble Dirk some, and who also happens to be a phenomenal rebounder for his position, and people are kvetching about our back-up combo guard.

[MaNu4Tres]

IMO-- Spurs have to make a move to improve their front-court. Bonner or Blair has to go.

One move I'd love is to move Blair/Jefferson and a 1st for Varejao.

Another one I'd consider is McDyess/Blair for Brandon Bass.

Kaman and Tyrus Thomas are also likely candidates to target.

[DPG21920]

I guess that's where we disagree. Mavs have their best player still playing like a top 5 guy, Spurs don't. Tyson was a pretty major addition and they didn't know Caron would get hurt.

Spurs don't have a superstar any more. I'm not expecting a blockbuster, but they will need to add more than minor tweaks to truly contend IMO.

If this leads to something else, that's fine, but I'm just analyzing the current situation and what has actually happened to date. Like I said, I don't love the trade at the moment, but I don't hate it. It will be predicated on what they do next whether it at least makes more sense to me in the bigger scheme of things.

To me right now, the move looks to be more financial than part of any plans to do something basketball wise.

[DPG21920]

Wow. We finally get a potentially stud defender at the SF, a guy with the length to actually trouble Dirk some, and who also happens to be a phenomenal rebounder for his position, and people are kvetching about our back-up combo guard.

You realize he's 19 and Richard Jefferson is on the roster right? I don't think anyone is "bitching" about getting Leonard, at least I'm not. But thanks for the tl;dr.

Your comment sounds a lot like when Tiago arrived. "We finally got our starting center, this changes everything!!!!". It's not that Tiago can't help, it's looking at who is on the roster, who the coach is comfy with and how big of an adjustment NBA rookies outside of top 3 picks normally have to make.

[TDMVPDPOY]

I guess that's where we disagree. Mavs have their best player still playing like a top 5 guy, Spurs don't. Tyson was a pretty major addition and they didn't know Caron would get hurt.

Spurs don't have a superstar any more. I'm not expecting a blockbuster, but they will need to add more than minor tweaks to truly contend IMO.


td was playin awesome in the memphis series for most of the first halves in each game, then they stop going to him or he didnt demand the ball...

that series shoes td can still get his when the morons on the team decide to go to him

[MaNu4Tres]

I guess that's where we disagree. Mavs have their best player still playing like a top 5 guy, Spurs don't. Tyson was a pretty major addition and they didn't know Caron would get hurt.

Spurs don't have a superstar any more. I'm not expecting a blockbuster, but they will need to add more than minor tweaks to truly contend IMO.

If this leads to something else, that's fine, but I'm just analyzing the current situation and what has actually happened to date. Like I said, I don't love the trade at the moment, but I don't hate it. It will be predicated on what they do next whether it at least makes more sense to me in the bigger scheme of things.

To me right now, the move looks to be more financial than part of any plans to do something basketball wise.

No, I agree with the bold part. But that doesn't change the fact that Mavs went from one and done to winning a championship with one or two minor tweaks. (Who Spurs managed to beat the previous season in the playoffs w/out a top 5 player.)

Spurs don't have a top 5 player in the league anymore, but with Manu and Tony healthy (seems like we've been using this hypothetical for a while now which never pans out; oh well--rinse and repeat) Spurs have two top guards able to put up 20 plus any given night in the playoffs. I don't think the separation between the Spurs and the Mavs is significant-- if anything it's very small. One or two subtle/significant moves could change things.

We are talking about a team that just won 61 games, not a lottery team.

You can't sit there and tell me you think the Mavs are leaps and bounds better than the Spurs. They are not. Spurs are right there behind them, even with Duncan in father time (sad).

[coachmac87]

I guess that's where we disagree. Mavs have their best player still playing like a top 5 guy, Spurs don't. Tyson was a pretty major addition and they didn't know Caron would get hurt.

Spurs don't have a superstar any more. I'm not expecting a blockbuster, but they will need to add more than minor tweaks to truly contend IMO.

If this leads to something else, that's fine, but I'm just analyzing the current situation and what has actually happened to date. Like I said, I don't love the trade at the moment, but I don't hate it. It will be predicated on what they do next whether it at least makes more sense to me in the bigger scheme of things.

To me right now, the move looks to be more financial than part of any plans to do something basketball wise.

Soooo why don't you love the trade? We pick up a player who can actually play defense. Offense was not the problem last year..Spurs are addressing their weak link, a wing defender. He hasn't even played a game yet and he is our best defender..Spurs need help defenseively and they are starting to address it. One move at a time.

[jjktkk]

To me right now, the move looks to be more financial than part of any plans to do something basketball wise.

Fianances definitely played a part of the Hill trade imo, but I do not believe that was the sole purpose. Because of the Spur's depth at the 2, they could afford to make this move, and the players acquired, although just rooks, have a chance to stick because of their defensive abilities.

[Supergirl]

http://www.sbnation.com/nba-draft/2011/6/24/2241737/2011-nba-draft-grades-san-antonio-spurs-trade-george-hill-tony-parker

29-year-old three-time All-Star, for a lottery pick in the 2011 NBA Draft. Instead, they traded zero-time All-Star George Hill and landed a player that should have gone in the lottery. Unfair, you guys.

Gained: Kawhi Leonard, Davis Bertans.

Gave up: George Hill.

Synopsis: Hill's pretty good, but he's not exactly a good starter. He can be a starter, and might be in Indiana. But if he were to become the starter in San Antonio, that'd be a position of relative weakness. Parker is one of the best in the NBA. George Hill will never be.

Leonard? We'll see. He's got potential and he's dirt cheap for a few years. He fits the San Antonio mold -- tough, defensive-minded -- and won't get in the way of Manu Ginobili or Parker too much. Bertans, meanwhile, was expected to go in the first round, and as such, is absolutely gravy in this deal. In a few years, the Spurs could have netted two promising, rising forwards. The Pacers will have netted George Hill.

Grade: A+.

[rascal]

Maybe I didn't articulate my point well:

The trade itself is fine IMO because Hill, while very good, isn't going to turn into one of those "holy sh*t we messed up trades". So in a bubble, the trade is fine and the spurs don't really miss when it's in the lottery range (weak draft or not). We won't know if Leonard is solid until he plays but even if he's a bust it doesn't set any thing back in a major way. It will be a blow to both contending and rebuilding but not a massive one either way.

But things don't happen in a bubble so the issue is if you gave up a rotation player on a contending team for some 19 year olds that might not be ready to contribute (maybe too young) or might not get an opportunity (RJ can't be moved) then you likely stayed put or moved backwards from a contention standpoint.

I know there is time, but swapping young player for young player doesn't really send you full steam into rebuild mode while at the same time it doesn't look to help you push forward from a contention stand point.

Thats all I said about the situation. Not that I hate the trade itself, it's just that when you move a young productive rotational asset, you would like to see it clearly be on a path to accomplish something either way (rebuild or contend).

Still plenty of time to go either way, but when evaluating this draft which is what happened, there are no real answers to anything.


How do you know Hill won't turn into a star in Indiana. He no longer will be playing in the shadows of parker and Manu and will flourish in Indiana. He will be a boderline all star there with lots of opportunity to play.

His confidence level will increase with the added playing time and they probably will mainly play him at the 2, his more natural position. There have been times when hill showed how good he can be with the Spurs but those times were far and few between. It was a confidence issue with him playing in a backup role. That won't happen in Indiana.

He will have a better year than Leonard. the trade is not bad for the spurs because Leonard fills a needed role and the spurs had a logjam at the 2 and Hill should not have been logging many minutes at pg anyways but Hill will outperform Leonard.

Its a trade that will help both teams. But

The Spurs should have dealt manu for an impact borderline star big and moved Hill over to the 2. That would have been the best for the team.

Because as it stands now the Spurs still have the same core team that has been regressing in the playoffs, that will likely just add an over the hill type of player on the frontline who won't be enough of a difference maker.

[mystargtr34]

Throw my 2c in if i may... Im on Manu4Tres' side of the fence on this one ... i think even if you put all stuff financial aside such as Hill being moved because the Spurs were worried they couldnt pay him next summer.. You can still argue the Spurs get better.

The Spurs can replace Hill's minutes with Neal and Anderson who is the better prospect anywau. Is the drop off from Hill to Neal/Anderson for those extra 25 minutes as big a drop off as having RJ and and guys like Manu Hill and Neal playing the 3 over having a defender like Leonard on the floor. In other words I think the substitution of Neal/JA for Hill is a very small drop off (assuming there is one, remembering that JA could get an opportunty to blossom that he may not have gotten with Hill here) while the gain of having a guy like Leonard (albeit unproven like every draft pick) defending the 3 spot over RJ Hill Neal and Manu defending the 3 spot to be is likely going to be a significant gain almost by default.

To me its a very good trade.

[DPG21920]

No, I agree with the bold part. But that doesn't change the fact that Mavs went from one and done to winning a championship with one or two minor tweaks. (Who Spurs managed to beat the previous season in the playoffs w/out a top 5 player.)

Spurs don't have a top 5 player in the league anymore, but with Manu and Tony healthy (seems like we've been using this hypothetical for a while now which never pans out; oh well--rinse and repeat) Spurs have two top guards able to put up 20 plus any given night in the playoffs. I don't think the separation between the Spurs and the Mavs is significant-- if anything it's very small. One or two subtle/significant moves could change things.

We are talking about a team that just won 61 games, not a lottery team.

You can't sit there and tell me you think the Mavs are leaps and bounds better than the Spurs. ).

You keep calling Tyson Chandler a minor tweak? That's what I don't get. Whether the Spurs are way behind the Mavs or not, they have legit things they need to address and the Mavs aren't the only team to be concerned with.

You and I just disagree with regards to where the Spurs are at from a contender standpoint. I was a vocal minority that said before the season Spurs werent true contenders. That doesn't mean I think they were way off, but I knew their margin for error was nil. They surprised me with a 60+'win season, but I don't put too much stock in that. Most knew they overachiever and they flamed out against a mediocre team. It's hard to tell where they were at bc of injuries, but that's a legit problem and not a fluke.

Again, I don't mind the trade and can see myself really liking it, but as of now the Spurs are completely stuck in no mans land.

[jjktkk]

How do you know Hill won't turn into a star in Indiana. He no longer will be playing in the shadows of parker and Manu and will flourish in Indiana. He will be a boderline all star there with lots of opportunity to play.

His confidence level will increase with the added playing time and they probably will mainly play him at the 2, his more natural position. There have been times when hill showed how good he can be with the Spurs but those times were far and few between. It was a confidence issue with him playing in a backup role. That won't happen in Indiana.

He will have a better year than Leonard. the trade is not bad for the spurs because Leonard fills a needed role and the spurs had a logjam at the 2 and Hill should not have been logging many minutes at pg anyways but Hill will outperform Leonard.

Its a trade that will help both teams. But

The Spurs should have dealt manu for an impact borderline star big and moved Hill over to the 2. That would have been the best for the team.

Because as it stands now the Spurs still have the same core team that has been regressing in the playoffs, that will likely just add an over the hill type of player on the frontline who won't be enough of a difference maker.

Your not going to get a "impact borderline star big" for Ginoboli.

[MaNu4Tres]

The Spurs should have dealt manu for an impact borderline star big and moved Hill over to the 2. That would have been the best for the team.

Because as it stands now the Spurs still have the same core team that has been regressing in the playoffs, that will likely just add an over the hill type of player on the frontline who won't be enough of a difference maker.

Only teams that would be interested in Manu are contenders, who would just offer crap they don't want (that brings the Spurs cap relief) and future assets (draft picks). Even Manu doesn't have as much value as you're implying due to his age.

Spurs wouldn't be able to get a "borderline superstar" to help now. That is unrealistic.

[ohmwrecker]

Here's how I view the draft: The Spurs are preparing for a post-Duncan/Ginobili future without a significant negative impact on the present. The lose a good player in Hill, but one who wasn't going to legitimately be able to replace TP or Manu this year. They gain a defensive upgrade at the weakest position on the roster and a decent replacement for the guy they gave up. Plus, three really high potential draft and stash projects.
The obvious next step is an upgrade in the post. They have RJ (who can still be valuable to a team given the right situation), McDyess' expiring and Blair as a possible kicker. Hopefully, they can find a solid big (Hickson, Thomas, Varejao, etc.) for a combo of those players. The bench might suffer a bit, but there is still free agency to add a piece or two.
I'm not counting on anything spectacular, but maybe a couple of tweaks (especially defensively) is just what the Spurs need. It's all pretty speculative at this point, but an improvement in Anderson, Neal and Splitter should be expected . . . not to mention Butler who could turn into what is essentially another high first round draft pick for the Spurs.

At the very least, the potential is pretty exciting and even if they fall short again, I feel pretty positive about the future, which I absolutely did not before last night.

[DPG21920]

All I'm saying is that I understand the move in isolation but big picture (this year) in don't see how it accomplishes moving the team closer to contention. I need to see how everything plays out before I can fully evaluate the trade. At the moment, I give it a B or B+, but I need to wait more. That's just me.

[MaNu4Tres]

You keep calling Tyson Chandler a minor tweak? That's what I don't get. Whether the Spurs are way behind the Mavs or not, they have legit things they need to address and the Mavs aren't the only team to be concerned with.

You and I just disagree with regards to where the Spurs are at from a contender standpoint. I was a vocal minority that said before the season Spurs werent true contenders. That doesn't mean I think they were way off, but I knew their margin for error was nil. They surprised me with a 60+'win season, but I don't put too much stock in that. Most knew they overachiever and they flamed out against a mediocre team. It's hard to tell where they were at bc of injuries, but that's a legit problem and not a fluke.

Again, I don't mind the trade and can see myself really liking it, but as of now the Spurs are completely stuck in no mans land.

Spurs are right outside of the elite championship contenders level. They're on the next level, where one or two subtle/significant tweaks could change things. And Chandler wasn't a big move last year-- it was subtle/significant though.

You didn't see analysts crown the Mavs champions last summer with the addition of Chandler.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

You realize he's 19 and Richard Jefferson is on the roster right? I don't think anyone is "bitching" about getting Leonard, at least I'm not. But thanks for the tl;dr.

Your comment sounds a lot like when Tiago arrived. "We finally got our starting center, this changes everything!!!!". It's not that Tiago can't help, it's looking at who is on the roster, who the coach is comfy with and how big of an adjustment NBA rookies outside of top 3 picks normally have to make.

You mean the coach who was so comfy with RJ that he had him sitting on the pine for the end of the Memphis series?

Yeah, clearly Jefferson is a lock for 40 minutes a night after that...

[DPG21920]

Ok, we will see. If RJs on the team, we will see if he gets the Tiago treatment

[ohmwrecker]

Ok, we will see. If RJs on the team, we will see if he gets the Tiago treatment

I'm just hoping Tiago doesn't get the Tiago treatment.

[MaNu4Tres]

I'm just hoping Tiago doesn't get the Tiago treatment.

Amen.

[DPG21920]

Also, it's not about having the media crown us contenders. While maybe no one predicted a Mav title bc of Chandler (mostly bc he was injury prone) it was a significant move/gamble. Spurs need something like that to have a true shot. It might not work out, but I would at least like to see that type of move. Just like the RJ trade. It didn't work out, but I love the idea behind it. You can't fault them for that.

When that trade was made it was bc the Spurs knew they needed a sig piece to truly have a shot at a title. They are still as far away as then so IMO they need more than minor tweaks.

While they don't need a bunch of all stars, they need some proven pieces.

[DPG21920]

I'm just hoping Tiago doesn't get the Tiago treatment.

Ha, true.

[Buddy Holly]

People who believe Hill was going to become an All Star here or is going to become a all star in Indy, need to stop smoking whatever it is that gives them this belief.

[lowdown]

Overall, this seems like a really good trade for the Spurs. I'll miss George Hill as a Spur but the FO seems to have gotten a lot of value for Hill considering where they were in the draft. Now an additional upgrade in the front court would be awesome if they can do anything in free agency or via trade.

[Mr. Body]

You realize he's 19 and Richard Jefferson is on the roster right? I don't think anyone is "bitching" about getting Leonard, at least I'm not. But thanks for the tl;dr.

If that was a tl;dr, then you have squirty donkey shit for brains. And plenty of people are sobbing their poor little eyes out about the trade.

[Mr. Body]

DPG, for someone who complains about other people's posts, you sure have diarrhea of the fingers. Goddamn do you post a lot of words that are barely worth reading.

[Obstructed_View]

Fianances definitely played a part of the Hill trade imo, but I do not believe that was the sole purpose. Because of the Spur's depth at the 2, they could afford to make this move, and the players acquired, although just rooks, have a chance to stick because of their defensive abilities.

I agree with this. The GH3 point guard experiment gathered enough data. He's not a point guard, and he's not really the defender everyone hoped he'd be. There's not really any reason to think that Neal and Anderson can't do exactly what Hill did for far less money. Once you decide that, he's basically an asset to trade unless you want to just let him walk next year.

The Spurs did get a couple of guys that are really young, but there's scuttlebutt that the season's not going to happen, so what's wrong with having really young players, especially if they can defend? If one, or even two of those small forward guys manage to pan out the Spurs are suddenly a much better team and never miss Georgie.

[ElNono]

Its all semantics as far as I'm concerned. The package deal is a metaphor. When Duncan retires, the Spurs will work hard to trade Parker and they will find plenty of suitors. If you don't understand satire, just say so. Duncan's retirement signifies the end of an era and with or without Parker, the Spurs aren't contenders. Non-contenders don't like to haul around $50 million dollar contracts on their roster.

I agree that they most likely going to disband and tank. I still don't understand how this ties with the notion that Parker's salary is coming off the book so we could've payed Hill then. At that point, you want to have as much players as you can on minimum deals, and whether Hill is around or not is frankly irrelevant.


Not Necessarily. If Kahn doesn't see Love as a player he can keep, he won't think twice about shopping him. Other teams would certainly show interest but most contenders might shy away because he hasn't shown the ability to raise his game to the next level to create more of a winning atmosphere in Minny. The Spurs could have paired Love with Duncan and given them that rebounding presence they soarly missed in the post season. It might have prolonged Duncan's career beyond next year. But now, I see no reason for Duncan to continue to grind it out a few seasons and beyond with the team out of contention.

The only way Khan gets rid of Love is if he packages him with a bunch of bad contracts on the team and gets back a superstar in exchange. It's the only thing that makes sense because Love's current rookie contract would only net $3m in return.

You need much more talent than Hill/Blair to pry a legitimate star like Love.


Along those lines, I would say Mahimni was even a bigger steal last year. Talk about a bargain buster. A player who never played, but came cheaper than most 3rd/4th bigs and helped the Spurs fill out the roster and field a competitive team.:rolleyes

Mahinmi was on a rookie scale contract, Splitter isn't :rolleyes
The Spurs obviously have bigger plans for Splitter than they ever had for Ian.
IE: They hope Splitter can be a 3rd/4th big (rotation guy), unlike Ian, who was the 5th big and a roster filler pretty much.


What a bunch of malarkey. Bargnani is 25 years old and has steadily gotten better each season. He averaged over 21 ppg in 2011 and Splitter isn't exactly a picture of health himself. Its tough to get rebounds when your constantly playing on the perimeter. Both players have flaws but Barg is the better player.

This is the first season Bargnani breaks the 20ppg mark on a shit team that could only muster 22 wins.

We're talking about the #1 pick in the draft. Blake Griffin averaged more PPG in his rookie season.

I'm not comparing Splitter to Bargnani. Bargnani makes 3 times as much and rightly so, since he was the #1 pick in the draft and is seemingly more talented. The point is, skilled big men are not cheap in this league.


I can't take you serious when you make silly comparisons like this even if its in aggregate. Splitter struggles to compete on the court against backups. Even when Duncan retires and with increased playing time, I sincerely doubt Splitter will ever be the focal point of the offense.

And bigs aren't hard to find. Quality bigs are hard to find.

Bargnani shouldn't be to focus of any offense either. But that's besides the point. Splitter has already shown he's a skilled player in a different league.
I don't think he'll be a superstar big in this league either. But skilled, serviceable bigs in this league cost a good chunk of money. I mean, we paid Oberto, who was comparatively speaking fairly old when he came over, $2.5m a season.

[ElNono]

Maybe I didn't articulate my point well:

The trade itself is fine IMO because Hill, while very good, isn't going to turn into one of those "holy sh*t we messed up trades". So in a bubble, the trade is fine and the spurs don't really miss when it's in the lottery range (weak draft or not). We won't know if Leonard is solid until he plays but even if he's a bust it doesn't set any thing back in a major way. It will be a blow to both contending and rebuilding but not a massive one either way.

But things don't happen in a bubble so the issue is if you gave up a rotation player on a contending team for some 19 year olds that might not be ready to contribute (maybe too young) or might not get an opportunity (RJ can't be moved) then you likely stayed put or moved backwards from a contention standpoint.

I know there is time, but swapping young player for young player doesn't really send you full steam into rebuild mode while at the same time it doesn't look to help you push forward from a contention stand point.

Thats all I said about the situation. Not that I hate the trade itself, it's just that when you move a young productive rotational asset, you would like to see it clearly be on a path to accomplish something either way (rebuild or contend).

Still plenty of time to go either way, but when evaluating this draft which is what happened, there are no real answers to anything.

If your contention is that this trade might backfire in a bad way, then yes, I agree that it could. There's no "likely or unlikely" here, IMO. It's a gamble. It will either pay off in the long run or not.

[Obstructed_View]

If your contention is that this trade might backfire in a bad way, then yes, I agree that it could. There's no "likely or unlikely" here, IMO. It's a gamble. It will either pay off in the long run or not.

In the long run, George Hill was likely going to leave as an unrestricted free agent. The only real question becomes is this the best the Spurs could do. They got two young players, one of whom was a targeted lottery pick that slipped to them, basically the small forward verison of DeJuan Blair.

Every trade is a gamble. There are safe bets and there are long shots. This is far closer to the former than the latter. Nobody thinks George Hill is going to turn into Michael Jordan once he gets to Indianapolis.

[ElNono]

Every trade is a gamble. There are safe bets and there are long shots. This is far closer to the former than the latter.

I agree with that. However, I can't discard outright that Leonard might just not work well for us, or that Corey might not be even serviceable if we have a couple of injuries and he needs to play.

Anything can happen, but that's in part why you do it. If any of these kids end up being some kind of gem that give the team a tangible quality jump, then it was more than worth it. You don't get a shot at that possibility if you don't make the trade.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, I'm not overly sold on the financial pressure to trade Hill. The main reasons seem to be it was decided he is not the point guard of the future for the Spurs; there were several other, ultimately more conventional options available at the two and a team was willing to give multiple picks for him, including one that would net lottery level talent immediately.

[Ginobilly]

Well, I'm not overly sold on the financial pressure to trade Hill. The main reasons seem to be it was decided he is not the point guard of the future for the Spurs; there were several other, ultimately more conventional options available at the two and a team was willing to give multiple picks for him, including one that would net lottery level talent immediately.


Agreed. Neal, Anderson, and Manu is more than enough at the 2. It shouldn't affect the Spurs too much on the offensive end, but now the Spurs don't have that athletic pg/sg tweener to guard the Derrick Roses, JJ Bareas, and John Wall's off the bench. Hopefully Parker makes a better effort on defense this year.

[coachmac87]

In the long run, George Hill was likely going to leave as an unrestricted free agent. The only real question becomes is this the best the Spurs could do. They got two young players, one of whom was a targeted lottery pick that slipped to them, basically the small forward verison of DeJuan Blair.

Every trade is a gamble. There are safe bets and there are long shots. This is far closer to the former than the latter. Nobody thinks George Hill is going to turn into Michael Jordan once he gets to Indianapolis.

How can you compare him to Blair? He isn't undersized for his position and actually has skill offensively..Your only comparing him due to his rebounding. Closer comparison could be a Gerald Wallace/Tayshaun Prince..

[Obstructed_View]

How can you compare him to Blair? He isn't undersized for his position and actually has skill offensively..Your only comparing him due to his rebounding. Closer comparison could be a Gerald Wallace/Tayshaun Prince..
I said that he was lottery talent that slipped to the Spurs. He's lottery talent and he sllipped in the draft. THAT's the only reason I'm comparing him to Blair. But now that you mention it, he's got hugely long reach for his height and is a very strong rebounder. Thanks for making the comparison that much better. :tu

[coachmac87]

I said that he was lottery talent that slipped to the Spurs. He's lottery talent and he sllipped in the draft. THAT's the only reason I'm comparing him to Blair. But now that you mention it, he's got hugely long reach for his height and is a very strong rebounder. Thanks for making the comparison that much better. :tu


Yet you said he is the small version of Blair...Didn't kno Blair was lottery potential hahaha. You making shit up now?? But your welcome

[ace3g]

RealSkipBayless Skip Bayless
Liked Spurs trade. George Hill too inconsistent, underconfident. KLeonard a steal at 15. Blue-collar toughness will help. Nice little move.

[Obstructed_View]

Yet you said he is the small version of Blair...Didn't kno Blair was lottery potential hahaha. You making shit up now?? But your welcome

I said he was the 'small forward' version of Blair. If you don't understand what a small forward is, then perhaps a basketball message board was a poor choice of hangout on your part. But then again, you didn't know that Blair was projected to be a lottery pick.

[ElNono]

Blair was actually projected to go in the first round (which I assume is what 'lottery potential' means in that case). The reason he didn't was the risk with his knees. Leonard didn't have such risk attached to him.

[Obstructed_View]

Well, I'm not overly sold on the financial pressure to trade Hill. The main reasons seem to be it was decided he is not the point guard of the future for the Spurs; there were several other, ultimately more conventional options available at the two and a team was willing to give multiple picks for him, including one that would net lottery level talent immediately.

There probably wasn't any actual pressure, but he had value due to his talent and his contract, and that value wasn't going to last forever. Any pressure was likely caused by outside factors like potential labor trouble and even RJ's contract more than anything related directly to Hill.

[Obstructed_View]

Blair was actually projected to go in the first round (which I assume is what 'lottery potential' means in that case). The reason he didn't was the risk with his knees. Leonard didn't have such risk attached to him.

The reason doesn't matter. The point is that the Spurs got a guy that they never thought they'd have a shot at because he slipped in the draft. :bang

[coachmac87]

The reason doesn't matter. The point is that the Spurs got a guy that they never thought they'd have a shot at because he slipped in the draft. :bang


Oh it does matter when you try to make a fool of somebody else, yet your the one who is fool. You don't know what your talking bout sir. Period. Nice try

[Cane]

Good value for Hill. The Spurs were probably praying to steal Valanciunas but grabbing a beast like Leonard is a steal as well. He'll be a welcome option when RJ struggles and the less minutes Manu has to play SF the better.

Also great that the Spurs were able to send Hill to Indiana, good stuff for both parties.

Spurs still need some legit size downlow and a vet backup PG; it'll be interesting to see if McDyess can help with that.

[ShoogarBear]

So . . . we're all in agreement then?

[Obstructed_View]

Oh it does matter when you try to make a fool of somebody else, yet your the one who is fool. You don't know what your talking bout sir. Period. Nice try

:lol Okay, dumbass. Whatever you say.

[Man In Black]

Agreed. Neal, Anderson, and Manu is more than enough at the 2. It shouldn't affect the Spurs too much on the offensive end, but now the Spurs don't have that athletic pg/sg tweener to guard the Derrick Roses, JJ Bareas, and John Wall's off the bench. Hopefully Parker makes a better effort on defense this year.

During the 3 titles that Bruce Bowen played as a Spur, he, moreso than Parker and especially in crunch time, he covered the opposing positions 1-4. Dallas got Dirk? Bowen had length and smarts to cover him. Phoenix has Nash? Bowen physically overmatched him when stops were absolutely needed. Bean going off for 30? Yeah, a lot of the times, but with Bowen, that also meant that he would need close to 30 shots to get that 30. While GHill had flashes of brilliance defensively, there were times, more often that not, especially in the playoff that he, unlike Bowen, would shrink from the pressure, especially on the road. Also, imho, there was 1 troubling aspect of GHill's game as a PG...he got tunnelvision when he became the primary ball handler for some units Pop threw out there. What I mean was, more often than not, if the Big 3 wasn't out there, He'd call his number 1st, and then his boy DeJuan 2nd. All other players, especially low post players...got barely any love. To make a team like the Spurs more effective, you need to have the ability to spread the wealth and then the recognition to take over if needed. GHill lacked either on a consistent basis. Not hating him, his talents were useful. The issue though, was unless he became Sidney Moncreif, there was no way the Spurs were going to be more than 1st round fodder. Getting a Bowen type player in Kawhi Leonard could change that come playoff time. And for all those peeps who say that because RJ has a huge contract, that he'll dominate the floor time...NOPE. He, moreso than others, has to earn his time on the floor. When Memphis came in, RJ best move was cheerleader when GNeal extended the series, but other than that...benched late with nary an impact.

[FkLA]

So he was never in serious contention for 6th man of the year... The guy received 10 votes, not even a single 1st place vote :lol

I didnt say he was a serious contender for it?I said he was one of the top bench players in the NBA, 8th out of however many bench players there are in the NBA can easily constitute as that imho.


The difference is that Tony has won series being the focal point for us. At the very best, George was great for a number of games playing as a role player.

Noone is comparing what George did for the Spurs to what Tony has done. Just brought up Tony's bad series to point out how dumb it is to bring up Hill being outplayed by Dragic to downplay his play in the Dallas series. Theres isnt a single key player on the Spurs that hasnt underperformed in the playoffs at one point or another.


You're not going to get me to talk shit about George. I already stated what's the only beef I could possibly have with him and that's his inconsistency on the road. I appreciate the time he gave us. Unfortunately, at this time the team needs to try to improve in whatever way possible, and due to his salary matching well to make a trade for picks and the logjam we have at SG, he was the guy that could give us the better return to move up in this draft and fetch some talent.

Fetch some talent for what, a last stand? Or to start rebuilding?? Thats my biggest problem with the trade. It shows no clear cut direction by the Spurs...you keep your veteran core whos title chances are currently on life support and probably die next yr, yet trade your 4th best player for young talent that needs time develope?

[FkLA]

This is obviously a great trade. Hill is a decent player, he could even be a starter in the right situation (which he might actually find in Indiana), but he was definitely expendable on the current Spurs roster, and since he couldn't be overpaid due to the next CBA, he was likely to be cut.

It's a win-win for both sides. The Spurs finally do something to draft a defensive minded 3. Granted, he might not pan out to the savior, but no risk, no glory. The Spurs also get the rights to 2 promising players in the deal.

Hill goes home, where he can get a larger fanbase, more endorsements, and a nice fat contract. He gets to play for a team that's going in the right direction.

Bird/Pacers get a player they always wanted to have on their roster, with a good chance of being able to sign him long term if they want to.

Only 2 persons don't like this move: the 2 members of the San Antonio chapter of the Church of George Hill. Surprise surprise.

(by the way, it looks like George Hill will be parting ways with the Spurs... just saying)

What is this obviously a great trade for...a last stand next year? The start of rebuilding??

[TDMVPDPOY]

imo they shouldve tried and dump parker or rjs contract

then try and sign d12 through FA

[Truth4sale$]

How can the spurs be better off next year with the trade of George Hill? If Hill was the best perimeter defender, then the Spurs have NO perimeter defenders next season. Kawhi Leonard will get NO respect from officials and probably won't play much under Popovich. 2012/13 will probably be the year the Spurs feel the positive impact of this trade along with the development of Bertrans.

[ducks]

spurs now play d
now they have someone who if rj is still here should light a fire under his ass if he wants to stay on the court

[TJastal]

spurs now play d
now they have someone who if rj is still here should light a fire under his ass if he wants to stay on the court

I'm sure he'll be happy to take a seat and earn his paycheck as a spectator this season. And the next season. And the season after that. And then the season after that season.

[DPG21920]

If that was a tl;dr, then you have squirty donkey shit for brains. And plenty of people are sobbing their poor little eyes out about the trade.


DPG, for someone who complains about other people's posts, you sure have diarrhea of the fingers. Goddamn do you post a lot of words that are barely worth reading.

:lol not understanding what I said then using some random Internet throw away line. I said that based on what you replied it was clear that you did not understand what I said, so I thanked you for tl;dr'ing my post.

[ElNono]

Fetch some talent for what, a last stand? Or to start rebuilding?? Thats my biggest problem with the trade. It shows no clear cut direction by the Spurs...

You're not going to make 'a major move' in the draft unless you have a top 3 pick and the draft class is pretty good (which is not the case here). This obviously was a tweak to give the team more balance and depth at the 3. It might pan out to be a good move or not, time will tell. A bigger move (which I think needs to shore the frontline) is going to have to come in the form of an offseason trade using Dice's contract, and some other piece (Blair/Bonner, imo). If some team bites on RJ's contract, there might be another shot there to acquire some other talent too.

This deal doesn't make them any more of a contender, whatever deals they do in the summer (provided there's a new CBA) might. Ultimately, if they decide to blow it up after next season, they now have a good chunk of guys on rookie deals, which is the ideal situation to be in if you're going to tank.

[DPG21920]

Nono, Im not even talking about the trade based on whether Leornard does well or not. My point was never about that. I said it's a risk but a minor one from that perspective bc Hill isn't so great that it's sets any thing back majorly.

It's about the move not really showing a true direction. They could make more moves and it becomes clearer, but at this point they are still stuck in the middle.

[ChumpDumper]

Nono, Im not even talking about the trade based on whether Leornard does well or not. My point was never about that. I said it's a risk but a minor one from that perspective bc Hill isn't so great that it's sets any thing back majorly.

It's about the move not really showing a true direction. They could make more moves and it becomes clearer, but at this point they are still stuck in the middle.Really DPG, it's difficult to understand your complete lack of understanding what the Spurs did here.

They used the draft to fill an immediate team need and secure a couple of future prospects. There really wasn't much more to do.

You seem to be complaining that the offseason didn't end Thursday night. You're going to be complaining about this direction thing for a long time.

[Mel_13]

It's about the move not really showing a true direction.

I'm late to this, so I'll be brief.

Trading Tim, Tony, or Manu would show some true direction.

I suppose trading Dice's contract to take on additional salary would show some true direction.

Beyond that, any move is an incremental one. In this case, trading a 4th year player at a position of relative strength for a rookie player at a position of relative need.

I don't understand the need to look for messages about the long term direction of the team in this trade.

Proceed.

[jjktkk]

Imo, the Spurs are straddling the fence, which I do not have a problem with. They are still trying to contend, but while trying to make tweaks to the roster, they also are keeping a eye towards the future. It may seem far fetched, but if the Spurs find the starting big they desperately need to pair with Tim, and the Big 3 are healthy in the playoffs next year(I know, big if), I still rather see what happens, rather than Pop and RC deciding to go full tank mode.

[ElNono]

Nono, Im not even talking about the trade based on whether Leornard does well or not. My point was never about that. I said it's a risk but a minor one from that perspective bc Hill isn't so great that it's sets any thing back majorly.

It's about the move not really showing a true direction. They could make more moves and it becomes clearer, but at this point they are still stuck in the middle.

tbh, moving any of the big 3 would be a clear indicator that full-on rebuilding started, IMO (unless they're getting another All-Star kind of player in return). That hasn't happened (yet), so I'll assume that for now they're sticking with a last stand/farewell tour. That can change from now until the next season starts (whenever that is). If anything, this move works whatever route they want to go. Hill wasn't the difference maker to get you over the top, and if they decide to get started rebuilding, you want to pile up rookie deals to fill up the roster.

[MaNu4Tres]

It's about the move not really showing a true direction.

It helps the defense now at the expense of an expendable player. How much will he help? That is up to him, being injury free, Pop and the future or play of RJ (worst case scenario he will see 15-20 minutes of action a night if he stays healthy).

It helps the future in that it gives the Spurs the best small forward prospect in the draft for the next 4-5 years on a very cheap salary. Something Hill wasn't going to be able to provide, not even from the back up sg/pg spot due to his contract being up after next year.

It's a win/win from both perspectives considering perimeter and interior defense was a major weakness (Leonard will help both). And also considering Spurs won't have a hard time finding a replacement for Hill's production having Neal and Anderson in the fold.

[SenorSpur]

Imo, the Spurs are straddling the fence, which I do not have a problem with. They are still trying to contend, but while trying to make tweaks to the roster, they also are keeping a eye towards the future. It may seem far fetched, but if the Spurs find the starting big they desperately need to pair with Tim, and the Big 3 are healthy in the playoffs next year(I know, big if), I still rather see what happens, rather than Pop and RC deciding to go full tank mode.

Yeah, I agree. The organization seems to be squeezing all it can out of what is left, but at the same time bracing itself for the ultimate fall.

Ultimately, the rebuilding stage will no doubt be a prolonged one - unless of course, they can get back into the lottery and have lightening strike for a 3rd time!

Duncan was once the only draw for end-of-career free agents. Those days are gone. Still, the organization knows full well what is ahead. The FO is making the right moves by improving the roster talent via the draft, while bracing for the inevitable.

[FkLA]

You're not going to make 'a major move' in the draft unless you have a top 3 pick and the draft class is pretty good (which is not the case here). This obviously was a tweak to give the team more balance and depth at the 3. It might pan out to be a good move or not, time will tell. A bigger move (which I think needs to shore the frontline) is going to have to come in the form of an offseason trade using Dice's contract, and some other piece (Blair/Bonner, imo). If some team bites on RJ's contract, there might be another shot there to acquire some other talent too.

This deal doesn't make them any more of a contender, whatever deals they do in the summer (provided there's a new CBA) might. Ultimately, if they decide to blow it up after next season, they now have a good chunk of guys on rookie deals, which is the ideal situation to be in if you're going to tank.

If other moves are made things could change but as of today this move shows no direction. If anything the Spurs have become less of a contender this next year, all while keeping their veteran core and trading away their best young asset. That makes absolutely no sense.

George Hill couldve easily been part of the rebuilding btw, hes still young and couldve easily fit in. Theres other guys on the Spurs that will be on the team past the 11-12 season that will have no place on a rebuilding team. Like Parker.

[ChumpDumper]

It's basically a mantra now.

[Big P]

No doubt this trade was about what GH was going to be worth in another year...clearly the fo wanted as much flexibility as they could set themselves up for in the next year or two...George will be looking for his big payday and there was no guarantee that he was going to stay in SA...I'm sure a few teams will offer him a nice contract when his rookie contract expires...this move brings in a defensive 3 on a "cheap" rookie contract for the next 4 years giving us more room to bring in TD an Manus replacements...and don't count out the Bertrans pick...that kid can flat out shoot....he will be in the NBA in a couple of years...overall good trade for both teams.

[MaNu4Tres]

George Hill couldve easily been part of the rebuilding btw, hes still young and couldve easily fit in. Theres other guys on the Spurs that will be on the team past the 11-12 season that will have no place on a rebuilding team. Like Parker.

Answer me this..

Do you think it's smart basketball business to pay a back up combo/guard 6-7 million per year, when you already have an All-Star point guard demanding 33-35 minutes a night making 12.5 million per year?

At the same time, do you think it's smart to pay a back up SG 6-7 million per year, when you already have two quality back up's in Anderson and Neal for 1/6th of that 6-7 million price tag?

Hill didn't and doesn't have a future here from a common sense perspective if Parker is here. That has to do with Parker, the draft of Anderson and the coming out party of Neal last year. It just didn't make sense, unless Spurs thought of Hill as Manu's replacement at the SG position, which they obviously didn't considering his size. Which is totally understandable.

[Mel_13]

That has to do with Parker, the draft of Anderson and the coming out party of Neal last year.

:tu

The whole business summed up in one sentence. Extending Parker, drafting Anderson, and finding Neal combined to make George expendable. It's just that simple.

[FkLA]

Answer me this..

Do you think it's smart basketball business to pay a back up combo/guard 6-7 million per year, when you already have an All-Star point guard demanding 33-35 minutes a night making 12.5 million per year?

At the same time, do you think it's smart to pay a back up SG 6-7 million per year, when you already have two quality back up's in Anderson and Neal for 1/6th of that 6-7 million price tag?

Hill didn't and doesn't have a future here from a common sense prospective if Parker is here. That has to do with Parker, the draft of Anderson and the coming out party of Neal last year. It just didn't make sense.

Answer me this...

Since when is keeping your veteran core for one last stand and trading your best young asset and 4th best player on the team, for a player that wont have an immediate impact a smart move?

Thats the only question I want answered.

[Mel_13]

Answer me this...

Since when is keeping your veteran core for one last stand and trading your best young asset and 4th best player on the team, for a player that wont have an immediate impact a smart move?

Thats the only question I want answered.

Your question has been answered multiple times. It seems as if you don't like the answer, but the question has been answered.

[FkLA]

Sacrificing young talent for established players is understandable and happens all the time. Sacrificing young talent for even younger raw talent when youre still trying to contend is retarded, plain and simple.

[Mel_13]

Im probably the biggest Hill supporter on here, but I wouldve been ok with trading him for an established player that couldve helped out next year. Sacrificing young talent for established players is understandable and happens all the time. It wouldve sent a clear message that the Spurs are all-in this next year. Sacrificing young talent for even younger raw talent when youre still trying to contend is retarded, plain and simple.

See. You just didn't like the answers.

[DPG21920]

I get what your saying and I understand the logic behind the move. I'm breaking it down like this: spurs aren't any closer to truly contending because of the move. They didn't do any thing to help usher in a rebuild either.

In that case, I figured they wouldn't give up a player that is young and proven that they say they loved unless it really accomplished something immediately by trading him either towards making a push to contend or rebuilding.

Again, I understand there might be more to the off season, I'm simply analyzing the trade that actually happened and where it puts the Spurs as they currently sit. I have no real feeling toward the actual trade in a buble as it is with two players that likely have about the same overall skill level.

[ChumpDumper]

TJ and FkLA went all in on George's being the starting point guard for the Spurs.

It's a little poignant watching their dream die, but it's a little pathetic seeing it take over their entire lives like this.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, I understand there might be more to the off season.lol might

[MaNu4Tres]

Answer me this...

Since when is keeping your veteran core for one last stand and trading your best young asset and 4th best player on the team, for a player that wont have an immediate impact a smart move?

Thats the only question I want answered.

Because the gap between the 4th best player (Hill) and Neal/Anderson wasn't and isn't significant. Neal and Anderson are more than capable to fill in the void left by Hill on both ends.

And how do you know Leonard won't have an impact? He only happened to be the best small forward prospect in the entire draft (a position of weakness the past 3 years). And he only happens to fit the skill-set of a player that the Spurs have needed ever since Bowen retired. If you watched any games last year, Spurs were physically out manned on the perimeter at the expense of Hill and Neal playing out of their positions (SF/SG).

Next year, with Leonard and the freeing up of playing time for Anderson, the Spurs instantly improve their perimeter defense. At the same time, Leonard and Anderson will help the interior defense-- given their size and superior physicality. Not saying they will be playing the 4 obviously, but they will be able to lend the bigs a significant helping hand considering their length and size-- rotating over and getting a hand up to contest off the ball. Or shoring up defensive possessions by limiting teams to one shot by their superior rebounding (Leonard) or by being able to put their big bodies on big 2-4's when blocking out.

Spurs won this trade.

[Vic Petro]

I think they are basically setting it up so that as Tim and Manu's career winds down, they are just one shitty season away from being a contender again vs. two. If you trade young players for "win now" guys, you are probably talking about veteran players with fairly large contracts. Now if the Spurs don't win a trophy (what deal is out there to make the Spurs a title favorite?), then bottom out and get a top 3 pick, that great player will enter a team with a bunch of old players and complicated cap situation. You now have to begin the process of surrounding this player with solid role players, and we're talking about a 4-5 year rebuild, a couple of which would probably be really crappy seasons.

But if you do what they are doing...build toward the future but also remain in contention in the short term, then it's more unlikely you win a trophy but only marginally. Meanwhile if the same scenario plays out and you bottom out in the near future, winding up with the same top 3 pick and great player, he's entering a team surrounded by role players entering their prime. Now we have maybe a 2-3 year rebuild with only the one really crappy years.

[FkLA]

Neal and Anderson are more than capable to fill in the void left by Hill on both ends.

No. I love Neal and his shooting but he doesnt bring the things to the table that Hill did offensively. Neither does Anderson from what little we got to see of him. Defensively its even worse, while somewhat overrated Hill was our best perimeter defender last season.


And he only happens to fit the skill-set of a player that the Spurs have needed ever since Bowen retired.

He also happens to be a 20 yr old rookie playing behind a player with a 40 million dollar contract. Expect 10-15 mpg out of him, tops.


Spurs won this trade.

In a couple of years maybe, when Leonard has fully developed and is playing big minutes for this team. When Tim & Manu are gone and we're no longer contenders.

[ChumpDumper]

lol contract playing time

[jjktkk]

:tu

The whole business summed up in one sentence. Extending Parker, drafting Anderson, and finding Neal combined to make George expendable. It's just that simple.

Apparantly not for some on here.

[MaNu4Tres]

Size and defense was not a weakness according to Fkla and TJastal.

Spurs need to keep every two guard according to them, especially if parting with one helps the size and defense category. They would rather pass because every roster needs AT LEAST four quality shooting guards.

[Buddy Holly]

If Hill eventually became the "starting" point guard for the Spurs, well, we'd become a lottery team quicker than you could say "TJastal makes no sense and is probably George Hill's cousin."

[ElNono]

If other moves are made things could change but as of today this move shows no direction. If anything the Spurs have become less of a contender this next year, all while keeping their veteran core and trading away their best young asset. That makes absolutely no sense.

Their 'best young asset' wasn't that good to begin with. He was serviceable as a backup, and that about sums it up. There's other not-best, but pretty-good-and-still-serviceable players that can fill that role. On the other hand, the Spurs have had a huge hole at SF since Bowen retired, and still do. So it makes total sense to try to shore up that position.

BTW, it's June. There's plenty of time for other moves.


George Hill couldve easily been part of the rebuilding btw, hes still young and couldve easily fit in. Theres other guys on the Spurs that will be on the team past the 11-12 season that will have no place on a rebuilding team. Like Parker.

He could have but the Spurs would've had to make a serious monetary commitment to him after 11-12, or let him walk... which is not what you want to do if you're going to be rebuilding.

[will_spurs]

No. I love Neal and his shooting but he doesnt bring the things to the table that Hill did offensively.

2011 playoffs:
- Hill: 11.7 ppg in 31.5 minutes
- Neal: 7.7 ppg in 18.5 minutes

So the bet is: can Anderson contribute 4 points in 13 minutes?

[ElNono]

I get what your saying and I understand the logic behind the move. I'm breaking it down like this: spurs aren't any closer to truly contending because of the move. They didn't do any thing to help usher in a rebuild either.

In that case, I figured they wouldn't give up a player that is young and proven that they say they loved unless it really accomplished something immediately by trading him either towards making a push to contend or rebuilding.

Again, I understand there might be more to the off season, I'm simply analyzing the trade that actually happened and where it puts the Spurs as they currently sit. I have no real feeling toward the actual trade in a buble as it is with two players that likely have about the same overall skill level.

Actually, it does help the Spurs should they decide to blow it up. They won't be forced to have to match a stupid money offer for Hill while fetching cheap contracts (what you want to have in a rebuilding team) in exchange for it.

This move gives them more financial flexibility going forward. Hate to say it, but this might have been accelerated because of RJ's stupid and untradeable contract.

[SenorSpur]

Answer me this..

Do you think it's smart basketball business to pay a back up combo/guard 6-7 million per year, when you already have an All-Star point guard demanding 33-35 minutes a night making 12.5 million per year?

At the same time, do you think it's smart to pay a back up SG 6-7 million per year, when you already have two quality back up's in Anderson and Neal for 1/6th of that 6-7 million price tag?

Hill didn't and doesn't have a future here from a common sense perspective if Parker is here. That has to do with Parker, the draft of Anderson and the coming out party of Neal last year. It just didn't make sense, unless Spurs thought of Hill as Manu's replacement at the SG position, which they obviously didn't considering his size. Which is totally understandable.

Exactly! :tu

Also by the same token, if Hill could've replicated some of the skills and contributions of Parker, as a true backup PG, the organization probably would've shippped Parker out and kept Hill, at a lower cost to the franchise.

If anyone doesn't get that there is a definite economical side to these decisions, then you're not looking closely enough. It's just good business - and the Spurs have proven they're one of the best in the NBA at it.

[SenorSpur]

Actually, it does help the Spurs should they decide to blow it up. They won't be forced to have to match a stupid money offer for Hill while fetching cheap contracts (what you want to have in a rebuilding team) in exchange for it.

This move gives them more financial flexibility going forward. Hate to say it, but this might have been accelerated because of RJ's stupid and untradeable contract.

I believe that's the other side of the coin that has not been expressed enough. The FO overestimated and guessed wrong on RJ. Because of him being a misfit on the court, and a salary albatross off of it, they couldn't give RJ away to another team. Therefore, the Spurs were forced to upgrade the SF position, with a player who could provide many of the skills that they thought RJ would've provided - skills this team has lacked since Bowen left.

In the process, Hill was sacrificed to faciliate that upgrade.

[FkLA]

Also by the same token, if Hill could've replicated some of the skills and contributions of Parker, as a true backup PG, the organization probably would've shippped Parker out and kept Hill, at a lower cost to the franchise.

So yall think the Parker rumors were all a smokescreen? :lol

The Spurs believed in Hill as a PG otherwise they wouldnt have shopped Parker. If anything halted Parker trade talks it was the Spurs insistence to include RJ not their lack of confidence in Hill as a PG.



If Hill eventually became the "starting" point guard for the Spurs, well, we'd become a lottery team quicker than you could say "TJastal makes no sense and is probably George Hill's cousin."

Based on what, the Spurs record when Hill was a starter due to Parker injuries? You might want to look that up first.



2011 playoffs:
- Hill: 11.7 ppg in 31.5 minutes
- Neal: 7.7 ppg in 18.5 minutes

So the bet is: can Anderson contribute 4 points in 13 minutes?

Great argument. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

I wouldn't close the book on trading RJ just yet. The only trades mentioned were horrible. There was no reason to do any of them at this point.

[ChumpDumper]

So yall think the Parker rumors were all a smokescreen? :lolI think some other teams floated some trades, and the Spurs made a counteroffer that would have made it work for them.


The Spurs believed in Hill as a PG otherwise they wouldnt have shopped Parker. If anything halted Parker trade talks it was the Spurs insistence to include RJ not their lack of confidence in Hill as a PG.The dream is dead. You look silly now.

[ElNono]

I don't know that it was Tony specifically that was shopped as much as the Tony/RJ combo... if they did want Tony moved, they had a few offers they could've pulled the trigger on.