Reply With Quote
Two healthy kidneys, for one.
How is George Hill a better pick than Darrell Arthur?
Two healthy kidneys, for one.
Because he fills a great need for the Spurs. Arthur really didn't, plus his medical condition whether real or not hurt him.
Arthur is an undersized 4 (measured 6-7 1/2, 216) who does not project as a potential 3 (the way Gist could, for example). We don't need a young 4 (Mahinimi) and we sure as don't need an undersized one at that. We do need a quality PG behind Parker, and Hill projects as a plus player on both ends of the court.
Arthur could have been traded, and the Spurs could have gotten Hill plus cash and/or a future pick. But as for keeping him? He's dumb as a post, which is a drawback trying to play for the Spurs.
You don't know that. That is pure, unadulterated conjecture.
the advantage of history probably gave him the tools he needed to make that post.
Well duh. Most of what gets posted about the draft is conjecture. But you don't need the benefit of hindsight to know that Arthur had considerably more value in this draft than Hill, even if he did slip a lot lower than projected. The same could be said for CDR. That may totally change after they have all gotten minutes with an NBA team. But not last night.
It's possible that the Spurs knew that someone behind them was specifically looking at Hill, but I doubt it. But there were definitely other teams that wanted Arthur and CDR.
But you sort of missed the point anyway, didn't you? (See my sig) Arthur wasn't a player that the Spurs were going to put on their roster, so if the Spurs had picked him it would have been to trade him. Hill was somebody they wanted. So for the Spurs' purposes, I guess that made him a better selection.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
