Zach Lowe: Hill/Leonard trade a wash for both teams .. slightly in Spurs' favor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tesseractive

Hill isn't a standout, but he's a decent complementary starter. Comparing Hill to Parker is like comparing Danny Green to James Harden -- not every starter is an All-Star, and they don't have to be.

---

I don't think that's true. Hill's being paid too much to have his limitations. If Green were getting paid $8 Million a year, then he'd be getting attacked, too. Hell, he still got attacked until Game 3 of the semis.

Hill's not a starting point. He's not a solid one. He's really not even a backup one. There's no way an $8 Million point-guard should be differing to a small-forward in running the offense. The could have found a spot-up shoot point for near the minimum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

The article says they would have and almost did pull out of the deal when they saw Leonard was still on the board.

---

"When Kawhi ended up being there, we had to think about taking him," Morway says. "But we already had Danny Granger and Paul George. That's what made it a little easier for us."

Isn't that pretty much what I just said? They already had George and Granger, so they didn't need Kawhi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

"When Kawhi ended up being there, we had to think about taking him," Morway says. "But we already had Danny Granger and Paul George. That's what made it a little easier for us."

Isn't that pretty much what I just said? They already had George and Granger, so they didn't need Kawhi?

---

So you missed the part right before that where they said they almost pulled out of the trade? Hill (in their minds) was better than any point they could get. Leonard was BPA and would have been the pick if Hill weren't available.

Now they could just be saying that to seem smart ex post facto, but if you take them at their word, they would have drafted him even with Granger and George on the roster.

Seriously, man, show the context of your quote:

Quote:

---

There was still one problem left: Indiana loved Kawhi Leonard. The Pacers had him about no. 5 or no. 6 on their draft board, and they thought very hard about scrapping the Hill deal and just taking a guy they never expected to be alive at no. 15. "When Kawhi ended up being there, we had to think about taking him," Morway says. "But we already had Danny Granger and Paul George. That's what made it a little easier for us."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Lorbek was (and is) never coming. He only wanted to use the Spurs to leverage his new contract in Europe, just like Boursis or whatever the fuck his name was. They both stiffed after stiffing the Spurs.

---

Not necessarily. Lorbek was coming off a great season - many trophies - for Barca in 2011-12 where he was basically a primary option with Navarro suffering from plantar fascitis. Made some great plays as a stretch PF with many plays called for him and even impressed some on defense. Barca were always going to pay him well. The Spurs werent' going to offer him anything more than a bench role besides they were able to give only part of the MLE. Why should a professional player give up on a starring role and pay just to be in the NBA?

That said, his season this year was quite bad. Never regained his previous year's form and other frontcourt players like Ante Tomic, overshadowed him.

That said, his contract with Barca ends in 2015 and there is a possibility he might consider to come to the Spurs next year perhaps as a Bonner replacement. But of course, there has to be significant improvement in his play next year for the Spurs to be interested at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

i like leonard, he's perfect for us, but he wouldn't have been as good on other teams. the spurs system and popovich brings the best out of players. would leonard have gotten minutes over george or granger? i don't think so. so it just depends on where u are. cuz i know for a fact, matt bonner isn't getting the minutes he gets with us anywhere else in the league..

---

According to some advanced stats stuff (YMMV), Leonard was predicted to be a great player in the pros, as weird as that sounds. He was ranked 3rd in the draft according to this system: http://wagesofwins.com/2013/05/21/ho...kawhi-leonard/

Those guys love the Spurs and pretty much fawn over just about every decision they make. Except the Richard Jefferson one--they hated that from the beginning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michaelwcho

According to some advanced stats stuff (YMMV), Leonard was predicted to be a great player in the pros, as weird as that sounds. He was ranked 3rd in the draft according to this system: http://wagesofwins.com/2013/05/21/ho...kawhi-leonard/

Those guys love the Spurs and pretty much fawn over just about every decision they make. Except the Richard Jefferson one--they hated that from the beginning.

---

And as far as the pro careers of guys go they have Leonard way over Irving and a tight first over Faried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

When Hill loses the starting point guard job before the end of his contract, this trade won't look so good.

---

Eh, I fully believe that the trade was just as much about X's and O's as bringing in the local kid to keep people excited about Pacers basketball. Sure, they targeted George for his ability, but they also wanted their hometown hero.

It's the same reason the Raptors came calling for Cory Joseph.

That trade for great for George to be able to go home and bask in his NBA emergence...and do it for the team he grew up cheering for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darkwaters

Eh, I fully believe that the trade was just as much about X's and O's as bringing in the local kid to keep people excited about Pacers basketball. Sure, they targeted George for his ability, but they also wanted their hometown hero.

It's the same reason the Raptors came calling for Cory Joseph.

That trade for great for George to be able to go home and bask in his NBA emergence...and do it for the team he grew up cheering for.

---

Did they also want a fast comer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

The Hill deal will be fine if they can replace Stevenson with a better ball-handler. No matter how much people try to say George is a star, he won't be able to make it as the main creator. Indiana needs better offensive players if they want to be anything more than Memphis East.

---

I agree. Stephenson supposedly has point guard skills according to some. I have yet to witness anything to confirm this. He's really better suited to a backup role. I think when Granger gets healthy he'll be back in the starting lineup. He's not any help in ball handling but the pacers will live with Hill's shortcomings because he fits their style and for the most part isn't needed to create much offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I don't think that's true. Hill's being paid too much to have his limitations. If Green were getting paid $8 Million a year, then he'd be getting attacked, too. Hell, he still got attacked until Game 3 of the semis.

---

If Green went on the open market this summer, he'd be making a lot more than he's making. Surely at least $6M/year, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

Hill's not a starting point. He's not a solid one. He's really not even a backup one. There's no way an $8 Million point-guard should be differing to a small-forward in running the offense. The could have found a spot-up shoot point for near the minimum.

---

Hill's job is like Avery's was -- bring the ball up, make the entry pass to the post, play smart, play D hard, hit open shots. The Pacers didn't need him to be Tony or Chris Paul -- and the open market price of a guy like that is way more than the $12 million Tony was willing to sign for.

Lowe is the man, great read. Good trade, though, I dont think 3 years from now it will be regarded as close as it is now between Leonard's ceiling, the cap benefits to the Spurs of not having to sign Hill to a long-term deal, and the possibility of Bertans being a solid role player.

I think it could be argued Kawhi Leonard is better than Granger. Granger has peaked IMO and is having knee issues....

I love how everyone here is so in favour of Defense, yet ignore the value of George Hill as a Defender. He's average as an offensive starting PG, but really good defensively, partly because he can guard 2's and a switch isn't such a killer.

It's a good trade, that is looked at as bad for Indiana by Spurs fans because they think that the Pacers should have known in advance that Granger would've been injured, Hill would've been signed at the same deal as a restricted free agent and that Kawhi would've developed into a good shooter before the draft.

It worked for both pacers wanted a pg ,spurs needed a sf and both teams improved

Let's reevaluate this trade in 2 years-especially after Bertams comes over

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jesterbobman

I love how everyone here is so in favour of Defense, yet ignore the value of George Hill as a Defender. He's average as an offensive starting PG, but really good defensively, partly because he can guard 2's and a switch isn't such a killer.

It's a good trade, that is looked at as bad for Indiana by Spurs fans because they think that the Pacers should have known in advance that Granger would've been injured, Hill would've been signed at the same deal as a restricted free agent and that Kawhi would've developed into a good shooter before the draft.

---

I don't think anyone has forgotten how good Hill was/is on defense. But he's also massively overrated in that regard. He's limited to ones and some twos and while he's good at stopping those players, he's too small to be a championship team's best perimeter defender. The Spurs traded him for one such defender, and picked up another off the street. If the Pacers had had Green instead of Stevenson, then Hill's value would be even less with Indiana.

I don't think he's average offensively as a point. His ball-handling issues are too severe. He can score well enough, but without someone who can control the offense on the perimeter, he needs to do more. He gets paid way too much to be as limited as he is.

I like Hill a lot, and I wanted to see him develop into a better player in Indiana. But he's not there yet, and I don't think he ever will get there. I can agree that the trade was good for Indiana, but they didn't get anywhere near equal value for Leonard. I'll say this though: If the Pacers beat the Spurs in the Finals, it will be in large part because Hill finds a way to shut Parker down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chinook

I can agree that the trade was good for Indiana, but they didn't get anywhere near equal value for Leonard.

---

I'm cherry picking this point for space, as yours is directly above, but this was kind of the point I want to make. Leonard is better than Hill. I thought that was likely to be true at the time, but the mapping of NCAA success to College success is not 1:1, and the Spurs were taking on risk that he would develop. That part is being ignored by the people(not you) saying it's a bad trade for Indiana. It's possible that Kawhi develops in the same way in Indiana, but it's still a prospect that they couldn't be certain of.

Also, like you note, George Hill is limited as a PG, and he can't guard all SG's or SF's. What I don't get is that people expect him to be able to do both, being some kind of Chris Paul/Bruce Bowen hybrid who can flawlessly create and guard everyone. That doesn't exist in the non LeBron universe. Those limitations are why he's paid $8m a year, which in the world of a 60m salary cap(That should expend over time) is a pretty small amount to pay for a 3rd/4th best player on a fringe contender.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jesterbobman

I'm cherry picking this point for space, as yours is directly above, but this was kind of the point I want to make. Leonard is better than Hill. I thought that was likely to be true at the time, but the mapping of NCAA success to College success is not 1:1, and the Spurs were taking on risk that he would develop. That part is being ignored by the people(not you) saying it's a bad trade for Indiana. It's possible that Kawhi develops in the same way in Indiana, but it's still a prospect that they couldn't be certain of.

Also, like you note, George Hill is limited as a PG, and he can't guard all SG's or SF's. What I don't get is that people expect him to be able to do both, being some kind of Chris Paul/Bruce Bowen hybrid who can flawlessly create and guard everyone. That doesn't exist in the non LeBron universe. Those limitations are why he's paid $8m a year, which in the world of a 60m salary cap(That should expend over time) is a pretty small amount to pay for a 3rd/4th best player on a fringe contender.

---

Good point. In fact when this trade played out in the first place, I had commented in this forum that whatever could be the potential of Leonard, it was a disproportionate trade of Hill - who had established himself well as a PG/SG stopper in situations and a decent backup PG in the Spurs squad - for a late-lottery pick.

Indiana were short of a PG when they made the trade and George Hill's addition made them better in that respect. Along with Hibbert, West and George, he also formed a strong defensive core and his salary of $8 million was pretty much par for the course he was offering them.

Just that the Spurs were quite visionary in recognising Leonard's talent, drive and abilities so quickly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jesterbobman

I'm cherry picking this point for space, as yours is directly above, but this was kind of the point I want to make. Leonard is better than Hill. I thought that was likely to be true at the time, but the mapping of NCAA success to College success is not 1:1, and the Spurs were taking on risk that he would develop. That part is being ignored by the people(not you) saying it's a bad trade for Indiana. It's possible that Kawhi develops in the same way in Indiana, but it's still a prospect that they couldn't be certain of.

Also, like you note, George Hill is limited as a PG, and he can't guard all SG's or SF's. What I don't get is that people expect him to be able to do both, being some kind of Chris Paul/Bruce Bowen hybrid who can flawlessly create and guard everyone. That doesn't exist in the non LeBron universe. Those limitations are why he's paid $8m a year, which in the world of a 60m salary cap(That should expend over time) is a pretty small amount to pay for a 3rd/4th best player on a fringe contender.

---

Defense is not as valuable as offense. Even though defense wins titles, teams with poor offenses won't win either. So being a shut-down defender by well-below-average offensive player at your position isn't as valuable as the inverse. Right now, even if Hill can shut down opposing points, he is way too easy to shut down himself, and he's almost a liability if he has to bring up the ball. It's not even like Hill is Bowen (who didn't make close to as much as Hill is making) on defense; he's not nearly versatile enough to be worth $8 Million on that. If he had a Ginobili next to him or a big point like Kidd, then he'd be more valuable, as he could just be a small shooting-guard. But the Pacers keep putting money into their front-court when they have no one in their back court who can handle the ball.

Is that Hill's fault? Not really. He is what he is, and Indiana knew that before they traded for him. But they badly need someone at least as good as Tyreke Evans if they want to be a legitimate team on paper. I just don't agree when people say Indiana got something they sorely needed in that trade. They got something they really wanted, but not what they needed. Now, they're trying to force Paul George to be a superstar because he's the only one who can do anything with the ball on the perimeter.

Does anyone know which other teams wanted Hill? The article mentioned that some teams ahead of Indiana wanted Hill but decided against the trades when someone fell to them. It would be interesting to know that and be able to look back at draft to see what could have been.

Kwahi fit a desperate need of a SF for the Spurs to replace the ineffective RJ, especially in the closing years of the Big 3. Hill was always going to be a backup PG as long as Parker is here.

The bonus for the Spurs is that Leonard has developed an adequate corner 3 a la Bowen to complement his defensive game. His willingness to rebound and drive to the paint is already better than Bowen. It looks like Leonaard will work hard enough to improve his skills that the trade will get better still as time goes on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jesterbobman

I love how everyone here is so in favour of Defense, yet ignore the value of George Hill as a Defender. He's average as an offensive starting PG, but really good defensively, partly because he can guard 2's and a switch isn't such a killer.

---

Hill's value as a defender was relative to what they had when he came in, which was crap. He's capable of playing inspired defense, but he doesn't do it consistently. Not a better defender than Tony Parker or Cory Joseph, especially for the money he's paid. As mentioned, he has some extra value to the Pacers because it's where he's from, and they likely thought playing for that team would inspire him to play harder. If it's done that, then it was a good gamble, but yet another reason why the Spurs were smart to get rid of him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Hill's value as a defender was relative to what they had when he came in, which was crap. He's capable of playing inspired defense, but he doesn't do it consistently. Not a better defender than Tony Parker or Cory Joseph, especially for the money he's paid. As mentioned, he has some extra value to the Pacers because it's where he's from, and they likely thought playing for that team would inspire him to play harder. If it's done that, then it was a good gamble, but yet another reason why the Spurs were smart to get rid of him.

---

I wish you could pay attention to some advanced statistics such as opposite PG/SG PER - the numbers of those guarded by George Hill were among the lowest in the league - on/off stats - George Hill played in the best 5-man lineup in the league - and so on. George Hill, has transformed into one of the best defensive guards in the league.

His offense on the other hand is limited, but he has maximised his ability there. What he lacks is a P&R game and that sets him back. And his shooting numbers - though vastly improving - still remains a work in progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spursfanfromafar

I wish you could pay attention to some advanced statistics such as opposite PG/SG PER - the numbers of those guarded by George Hill were among the lowest in the league - on/off stats - George Hill played in the best 5-man lineup in the league - and so on. George Hill, has transformed into one of the best defensive guards in the league.

---

I'll bite. Do those same advanced stats say Hill was a great defender when he was a Spur? He certainly showed signs from time to time, but he was quite likely the worst player on the team in the playoff series they lost to Memphis, so his advanced stats don't carry that much weight with me because he didn't show up when it counted. If he "transformed" since arriving in Indiana, then like I said, it was a good gamble for a team with only two winning teams in their division the last two years. The Spurs were going to end up with an overpaid backup tweener guard who was inconsistent on defense and couldn't run the offense or they were going to end up with nothing.