George Hill - the right choice?

In a summer that netted the Spurs Richard Jefferson, Antonio McDyess and DeJuan Blair...all of which will be fullfilling the team in much needed areas...the question remains...

Will George Hill become the b/u PG the Spurs desparately need to limit TP's minutes throughout the season?

I keep reading about Ramon Sessions and the intrigue he has received form the Knicks and the Clippers. Apparently now it seems the Knicks are the only team looking to offer the RFA an offer. All of which according to previous articles if to exceed 3 mil the Bucks would not match.

Sessions would prosper very well in the Spurs organization. Hill is locked in for 4 more years at a very reasonable salary and...if for some reason Parker decides to bolt...the spurs would have a very good young PG to take over the lead.

I'm not sold on Hill being a starting PG if Parker were ever to get injured.

I don't know that anyone here is "sold" on the 2nd sting pg being a starter...but how many teams have that?

I can't really think of any, off the top of my head. Can you?

So, why should the spurs need what no other teams need?

stop creating problems where none exist.

Hill has all the tools to become a good PG in the NBA. Good shooting mechanic, athletic, smart, good defensive body...

He just lacks playmaking ability. I dont ever see Hill as a future All Star but I can see him as a solid NBA starter....

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=133451

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spursfaninla

I don't know that anyone here is "sold" on the 2nd sting pg being a starter...but how many teams have that?

I can't really think of any, off the top of my head. Can you?

So, why should the spurs need what no other teams need?

stop creating problems where none exist.

---

Hornets / Lakers / Mavericks to name a few.

I'm not trying to or do I see it as "creating" anything but a thought of why not tender an offer to a RFA PG who is proven to be starting caliber and if the Bucks match...so be it. If they don't, the Spurs have a 1st and 2nd unit unequaled in the NBA.

I didn't know there was a problem with trying to field the best team available.


And Ed...sorry...I'm new and didn't see your earlier post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurNation

Hornets / Lakers / Mavericks to name a few.

I'm not trying to or do I see it as "creating" anything but a thought of why not tender an offer to a RFA PG who is proven to be starting caliber and if the Bucks match...so be it. If they don't, the Spurs have a 1st and 2nd unit unequaled in the NBA.

I didn't know there was a problem with trying to field the best team available.


And Ed...sorry...I'm new and didn't see your earlier post.

---

Because the Spurs cannot offer more than the minimum. I am quite sure that Sessions will not sign an offer sheet for the minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mel_13

Because the Spurs cannot offer more than the minimum. I am quite sure that Sessions will not sign an offer sheet for the minimum.

---

Sessions is not considered Bird Rights since he's only played for the Bucks for 2 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurNation

Sessions is not considered Bird Rights since he's only played for the Bucks for 2 years

---

1. Not that it matters, but the Bucks hold Early Bird Rights on Sessions.

2. His status with the Bucks does not change the fact that Spurs cannot offer more than the minimum. Sessions will not sign an offer sheet for the minimum.

Edit: Spurs can offer the LLE. Doesn't change the basic equation. It would not be enough to entice Sessions to sign an offer sheet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xtremesteven33

Hill has all the tools to become a good PG in the NBA. Good shooting mechanic, athletic, smart, good defensive body...

He just lacks playmaking ability. I dont ever see Hill as a future All Star but I can see him as a solid NBA starter....

---

:tu

Yes.

Sessions is not a 2nd string point guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurNation

Hornets / Lakers / Mavericks to name a few.
.

---

Are you saying these 3 teams have 2nd string pg's that the coach would be comfortable with as starters on championship teams or a team in general?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DPG21920

Are you saying these 3 teams have 2nd string pg's that the coach would be comfortable with as starters on championship teams or a team in general?

---

In general.

And...in general...I'm not saying Hill is a bad option to the b/u PG more so than he's not proven where as Sessions is.

The team has gone into territory it's never gone before regarding spending. I was just following through with a suggestion to improving even more.

What a difference 4 months makes...:lol...Getting spoiled is something a fan can get used to or even expect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurNation

In general.

And...in general...I'm not saying Hill is a bad option to the b/u PG more so than he's not proven where as Sessions is.

The team has gone into territory it's never gone before regarding spending. I was just following through with a suggestion to improving even more.

What a difference 4 months makes...:lol...Getting spoiled is something a fan can get used to or even expect.

---

with what money? The most we could give is the LLE I believe.

George is either Tony' backup or he should be dealt.

I'm not sure about Hill being able to handle the ball in really pressure situations. But the Spurs have Ginobili and Mason who can play 2-3 mpg here and there as a PG in those situations, so I don't think they need to spend money to sign a FA backup PG. They would do better to sign a journeyman SF if they aren't going to bring back Udoka.

Man, I really questioned the Hill pick when it happened (with a young big like Arthur still on the board, Chalmers, Greene, etc) I'll admit, but watching him play, his hops, his reach, his defensive effort, his occasional three, his resiliency........ lets just say Beno Udrih's term in SA makes Hill look like Kevin Johnson to me... (minus the 12 apg).

I hope we hold on to him. If he can turn into a Delonte West type at the least (who played point for the celtics and can move the 2), I'll be happy. He doesn't have to be Steve Nash out there, just sturdy enough to run plays efficiently. He'll have more confidence in himself now, Pop will trust him more, he can't get any worse. Eric Gordon, Russell Westbrook, these guys will probably be better long term, but they can't say they've played playoff minutes and probably wont for awhile. Hill can. Any big game experience he gets is only going to make him better for us imo.

We have no money. Sessions is not taking the LLE, Hill is our guy.

I'm still not convinced that he will be a good backup PG for Tony. But I think he definitely deserves chances to have a try.

It's ironic they gave away the perfect backup in Beno.
- Im ok with Hill being the backup but he has to be more aggressive, he has all the tools of a scoring champ and we all know Pop loves scoring PGs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by barbacoataco

I'm not sure about Hill being able to handle the ball in really pressure situations. But the Spurs have Ginobili and Mason who can play 2-3 mpg here and there as a PG in those situations, so I don't think they need to spend money to sign a FA backup PG. They would do better to sign a journeyman SF if they aren't going to bring back Udoka.

---

Please do not ever mention Roger Mason and point guard in the sentence again...

Last time I checked, Hill was pressed into a starting role 10 games into his career and did really well. With the added confidence of a season under his belt, and the full trust of his coach at the moment, why wouldn't Hill be better than he was last season when he was starting?

we'll see if Hill succeed in his role.

but right now, i see no reason not to try and not to think so.

Hill will be just fine. Bringing in Sessions or anyone else and they will whine for a starting role/starter's minutes.

We've proven that you don't have to have a traditional PG with a lot of assists to be of championship caliber. On the other hand, if not traditional then you have to be a damn good shooting PG like TP.

Come to think of it, all TP had when he came into the league was that incredible quickness that allowed him to score at will in the lane. He proved that hard work and practice can develop another skill over a couple of years--in his case a pretty good outside shot--and the result is an All-star.

Let's see if Hill has that same drive to learn and be better. He has a lot of physical tools and may surprise us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pawe

It's ironic they gave away the perfect backup in Beno.
- Im ok with Hill being the backup but he has to be more aggressive, he has all the tools of a scoring champ and we all know Pop loves scoring PGs.

---

Agree for ths spot minutes Beno played, he was effective.

We have too many failed experiments with veteran guards like Vaughn, van Exel and Stoudamire. All they did was throw bricks come playoff time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurNation

Hornets / Lakers / Mavericks to name a few.

I'm not trying to or do I see it as "creating" anything but a thought of why not tender an offer to a RFA PG who is proven to be starting caliber and if the Bucks match...so be it. If they don't, the Spurs have a 1st and 2nd unit unequaled in the NBA.

I didn't know there was a problem with trying to field the best team available.


And Ed...sorry...I'm new and didn't see your earlier post.

---

Antonio Daniels, at this stage in his career, is certainly better than Hill, but he is 34 years old, and is expected to play only in a backup role. Not sure if most people would think of him as a long term starter on the team.

The Lakers don't even have a PG good enough to start for most team, and is by far their worst position and biggest hole.

As for the Mavs, Terry is more a SG than a PG, and Jose Juan Barea, while good vs. the Spurs, makes tonnes of mistakes and is an average point when not playing the Spurs.

Besides, there really isn't any point in going even more over the tax if Parker gets hurt. The Spurs will have no chance of winning a title if that happens, and teams don't go $10+ million in taxes with the prospects of not even making the Finals (unless you are the Knicks).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pawe

It's ironic they gave away the perfect backup in Beno.

---

say what????

that lazy piece of shit????

I can see a pretty good chance that AD get's a buy out this season and then would be available for the min. he didn't play much last season and now that the Hornets added Collison and Thornton this won't change.
if he agrees to a buy out, that is his contract minus the vet. minimum, the Hornets will save twice the money (even more if this move get's them under the threshold), meanwhile AD wouldn't lose money (I assume he will get a vet. min. contract), plus he can chose the new team, plus he can chose a situation where he get's more minutes.
however, this team likely won't be the Spurs, I can't remember that there was much love left when he left.
this aside, IF he would sign for the vet. min, I'm all for it. AD still can't shoot, but he's a capable playmaker, rarely turns it over and is still a decent defender. would be a huge upgrade over JV from last season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pawe

It's ironic they gave away the perfect backup in Beno.

---

And now Beno's new team is looking to give him away as well................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurNation

I'm not sold on Hill being a starting PG if Parker were ever to get injured.

---

If Parker gets hurt in the regular season Hill is a good enough fill in. If Parker gets hurt in the playoffs then it doesn't matter who the backup is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpurNation

Hornets / Lakers / Mavericks to name a few.

---

Darren Collison? I'm not sure that the Hornets would be okay with handing the reigns of their offense over to a pure rookie drafted 21st this year. He was good in SL, but then again, so was George Hill. I see a disparity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xtremesteven33

Hill has all the tools to become a good PG in the NBA. Good shooting mechanic, athletic, smart, good defensive body...

He just lacks playmaking ability. I dont ever see Hill as a future All Star but I can see him as a solid NBA starter....

---

Funny, seems like a lot of these same knocks were thrown at Parker early in his career. That didn't turn out too terribly.

Hell, Parker couldn't even shoot for his first five years.

I'd be surprised if Hill ever becomes a TRUE point guard, but I think he can fit the same Scoring One mentality that Parker thrives on. And as he spends more time in the league and hopefully focuses his attention on certain areas, then he's bound to become more affluent to the game and be a better playmaker.

Keep in mind that this guy's got one rookie season under his belt, and he was being dangled on the playing time string for half of that. It's way to early to call it yet.

Quote:

---

The Lakers don't even have a PG good enough to start for most team, and is by far their worst position and biggest hole.

As for the Mavs, Terry is more a SG than a PG, and Jose Juan Barea, while good vs. the Spurs, makes tonnes of mistakes and is an average point when not playing the Spurs.

---

Fisher, Farmar and Brown can all handle the ball. Yes, it might be their weakest link, but these guys are more than capable in protecting the ball. Furthermore, the Lakers offense revolves around Bryant who is their primary playmaker.

Barea was pretty good handling the ball against the Spurs. He went everywhere he wanted and was definitely tiring out Parker.

Now, let's go back to Hill. He just doesn't handle the ball well enough. Fisher, Farmer, Brown, Barea all handle the ball better than Hill. That's a plain and simple fact. Now even be as good a handler as Fisher or Brown (the two worst handlers), then he's worth his weight in gold.

Hill will spend a lot of minutes alongside Manu in the back court and then I'm not afraid about ball handling and play making. I wouldn't be surprised, if Pop tries to play Manu at the point some minutes. in fact I'm pretty curious, how this could work, IMO it should work out fine.

If we are simple talking about a good ball handler, then Ginobili is good enough. Even Jacque Vaughn, for all his flaws, was a pretty good ball handler.

But I am reading this as saying whether Hill was a good enough backup when compared to Barrea, Fisher and Brown. I am saying that Hill is at least at around the same level as those players with the exception of Fisher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mountainballer

I can see a pretty good chance that AD get's a buy out this season and then would be available for the min. he didn't play much last season and now that the Hornets added Collison and Thornton this won't change.
if he agrees to a buy out, that is his contract minus the vet. minimum, the Hornets will save twice the money (even more if this move get's them under the threshold), meanwhile AD wouldn't lose money (I assume he will get a vet. min. contract), plus he can chose the new team, plus he can chose a situation where he get's more minutes.
however, this team likely won't be the Spurs, I can't remember that there was much love left when he left.
this aside, IF he would sign for the vet. min, I'm all for it. AD still can't shoot, but he's a capable playmaker, rarely turns it over and is still a decent defender. would be a huge upgrade over JV from last season.

---

The problem with that logic, is that while Daniels has proven himself a capable backup in the this league, Hill appears to be a younger version of Daniels down to the size and length.

I would take Hill over any of the backup PGs that have been mentioned in this thread, not much to think about IMO..none of them that have been mentioned are good playmakers, which is Hill's flaw right now..his ball-handling needs work, but he makes up for it with his explosiveness, athleticism, and length..

Farmar is one of the worst defensive players in the NBA..Fisher has no playmaking ability at all, and doesn't play consistent defense..Shannon Brown might be better than Hill, but Hill clearly has the better tools IMO, and he should be better this season..Brown also isn't a good playmaker..

Antonio Daniels isn't better than Hill at this point, Daniels doesn't have much left in the tank..

LOL @ Barea..George shut him down almost every time he guarded him this season..

Hill is never going to be a pure PG, and he won't even be asked to be a pure PG in our system..he'll be asked to create plays off penetration occasionally, but his main role is gonna be as a slashing/scoring PG, and also playing off the ball..

Manu is going to be our main ball-handler off the bench, and that's how it should be..

Hill clearly has talent and the physical tools to be a good player..he was only a rookie last year..I knew we aren't used to having players with upside, but we actually do right now..

If Hill can become as good as Rajon Rondo then all this investment will be worth it.

Rondo isn't a top class ball handler but he makes up for it by having a top class defense and more than adequate offense.

Like every has been saying, all Hill has to do is become a decent ball handler and he'll be golden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pawe

It's ironic they gave away the perfect backup in Beno.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

And now Beno's new team is looking to give him away as well................

---

what ? i thought Beno failed in SA because Pop can't coach backup PG.