Reply With Quote
Parker's deal is expiring and he's a very good player. We shouldn't need a 'sweetener' to trade him, and we surely don't want to trade Parker and our only other nominal point guard.
The Great George Hill Schism
By Bethlehem Shoals
It wasn't like the old days, primarily because the stylistic contrast is no longer so sharp. But there it was, Steve Nash and Amar'e Stoudemire sweeping Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, and Manu Ginobili out the door. Is an era over?
Actually, the Suns may be closer to the end, since as usual, the Spurs have a plan beyond their current line-up. They have young players, players waiting in the wings, and a draft pick that you know they'll make good on. The elements are all in place for the Spurs to reload yet again, albeit more dramatically than usual. There simply must be a plan. The question is, what exactly is it?
If you ask Chris Mannix of SI.com, San Antonio's future breaks down like his:
With age a real factor (Duncan, 34, Ginobili, 32 and [Antonio] McDyess, 35 are on the back end of their careers) the Spurs may need another infusion of talent if they hope to extend this group's run. That could translate to either Parker or George Hill being dangled in a trade. Whatever happens, it seems unlikely this group will remain intact.
On the other hand, ESPN.com's Marc Stein has something to say:
San Antonio will have the blossoming George Hill and DeJuan Blair coming back next season, along with the 20th pick in the June draft, which is the Spurs' highest selection since winning the lottery in 1997 and the right to take Duncan. [The] Spurs remain optimistic about their chances of convincing 2007 draftee Tiago Splitter to leave Europe and come to the NBA next season.
Stein follows this with the possibility of either Parker or Hill being traded to lighten the load, though the two are linked: Hill is an attractive chip, but makes very little. He might very well up sweetener in a Parker-to-elsewhere deal.
Manu is locked in, and the Spurs have decided to ride his contract out. The same goes, of course, with Duncan. Parker is paid much and hardly indispensable.
What jumps out at me is the question of whether George Hill is a major part of the Spurs future, or a wild card that could tempt a trade partner. Hill had a strange postseason, averaging 13.4 points and syncing up well with Manu. At times, he was the Spurs most potent all-around player. On the other hand, he could also be a defensive sieve against Steve Nash (a sentence that looks like it's upside-down).
The Spurs could sell reasonably high on Hill, or decide to stick with him through this next phase. The question is, what if they both want to keep him, and see trading him as the main way to clear out Parker's salary or other space? Hill seems like the kind of player the Spurs typically dig up and develop into a major championship factor. Maybe he's not. Or maybe, to keep the spirit alive, the Spurs will have to betray a little bit of their philosophy.
Parker's deal is expiring and he's a very good player. We shouldn't need a 'sweetener' to trade him, and we surely don't want to trade Parker and our only other nominal point guard.
So the Spurs are going to trade both their point guards for whom, Bethlehem?
packing hill and rj make more sence then rj and any of the big three
and pop saying hill is a favorite is because hill has feel loved
The real question is what is George Hill's ceiling.
It's easy to say he's going to continue to improve, but will he really? The overwhelming odds are that we seen 90% of whatever improvement he's going to make. So next season he moves from a 12 PPG scorer to a 15 PPG scorer. Is that enough to bet the future? If the Spurs can package him for someone with potentially a higher ceiling do they do it?
To his credit, he's shown a willingness to put in the work on his own to get better, and character-wise fits in with the Spur personality. I just don't know if he's ever going to be more than a good #4 or #5 player for a championship team.
And once and for all, he's not a point guard.
i could see blair being used as a sweetner.. not hill.
although i dont feel any of the big 3 or hill are going anywhere.
the good thing about hill he fits and works on his game during summer and buys into the spurs
We have depth issues, so I don't see any urgency in trading both Hill and Parker.
tradin parker and hill, so whose our pg and backup? dont tell me wasting another draft pick on a pg again...
I'm not sure on the people saying hill isn't a point guard, he has the ball handling skills pretty good court awareness, makes pretty good passes. He's a little more comfortable still at shooting guard but this isn't a case of trying to convert mason into a point guard. He also directs an offense pretty well. I don't see hill as an all star but I do see him as a starting combo guard getting big minutes in the future. He's also likely to be under appreciated as putting up 16 ppg 5 rebounds per game 4 assists per game and 2 steals per game from 2011-2019 is a great stat line for a combo guard. Hill is also part of why I'm really high on Temple. At 6-6 he can provide size against bigger guards that hill has trouble with and a front court of any combination of Hill, Ginobli, Parker, and Temple gives most opposing front courts match-up problems somewhere, and can keep everyone's legs fresh. Parker is the only ego on there and he's not bad. So in a 60 minute game Parker getting 40 minutes Manu getting 30 Hill getting 30 to 35 and Temple getting 20+ is nice in the regular season (I know it adds up to more than 60 minutes for 2 positions in a game but both Manu and Temple can play small ball small forward.)
why does manu ran point not hill when he tp was hurt
I remember hearing that the De Colo kid we drafted last year can run some point.....anyone know what his ceiling might be with regard to that?
I don't see Blair going either. The Spurs finally got a couple of good, young, players in Blair and Hill and unless the Spurs could somehow miraculously land Bosh, I wouldn't trade Blair, or Hill.
You know, I hate to say it because there is obviously only 1 Manu Ginobili...but De Colo really reminds me of Manu. He has the same slipperiness, and the same uber-compe iveness that Manu has.
But to address the main issue of this thread...
I know this is blasphemy around here (but I don't give a because I think the new posters on this site are slightly re ed) but it is patently obvious that Tony Parker is our best player now and will be for the foreseeable future.
There is no way the Spurs trade him, especially after an injury plagued year. With Manu playing well again, the big 3 are finally playing like a big 3 (although Duncan is declining quite quickly).
Great points. And you are correct that most players make improvements over their first 2 - 3 years. After that it pretty much becomes what you see is what you get. So in order to be the stud many think he will be he will have to make the type of improvement next year that we saw this year. Possible bit I frankly don't think it's probable.
And if the Spurs could package him with RJ for that player then why not?
I'fd prefer RJ leaving to TP.
Amen. Combo guard but primarily a SF and if he sticks then maybe he takes over Manu's bench role after he retires.
If Parker goes I look for SA to get another true PG and run variations of Manu and Hill at PG. Afterall, most champions have average PGs to begin with. Where is the ring for Nash, Williams, and Paul. Rondo and Parker won their rings when they were not the number one option.
I think the Spurs will likely try to trade RJ's expiring contract first. I wouldn't be surprised to see Hill and/or Blair packaged with him to sweeten the deal.
If there are no takers on RJ I wouldn't be surprised to see the Spurs at least shop Parker a little bit. If the Spurs are going to win that 5th ring with Duncan, 2011 will have to be the year they do it. I think this summer they are going to try to make a serious move to strengthen the roster.
I really don't think we've seen the best out of Hill yet. I think he's at the point where he's starting to be more comfortable at the point, but is still a 2 at heart. I think that's what confuses him now, because he has to work within Pop's system and sometimes looks like he doesn't know when to set up the play and when to score. I think given a wee bit more leeway like Pop did with Manu and his helter-skelter play, Hill will become even more of a weapon for us.
so you're saying that a 6'2" small forward is a good idea? he'd get eaten alive with the height mismatches. you are talking about george hill right?
Ultimately I think we'll see the second half of the roster essentially be replaced. The need for 3 point shooting and guards who can defend is glaring. More likely than not the Big 3 plus RJ will be here next year, and we'll see a bunch of new guys given some run. Bogans, Mason, Bonner and Mahinmi won't be Spurs next year...that's pretty much a given.
OOPs! My bad - I meant sg and not sf. I need to rpoof read before hitting enter!
Posters in this thread made two glaring mistakes.
1)SF: Hill is WAY too small. If you mean 3 guard lineup, then Manu is the sf. If you meant "combo guard and mostly sg" then your comment makes more sense.
2) 60 minutes in a game: that would have to be double overtime, b/c a game has 48 minutes.
the OP article stupidly says they would trade parker and hill as "sweetener"...which leaves us with temple as starting pg and no backup. Plus parker is a great player on a reasonable contract when healthy, and his injuries are not chronic. So no need for anything to trade parker, the only question would be what the are you trading him for? If for s sf, you trade him and jefferson for another scoring sf with some fillers to make it work. If for a center/pf, then you trade splitter and parker again for that. Adding Hill is redundant and makes no sense.
Now, either is expendable it if really makes the team better, of course, but Tony is a top 5 PG, so it is hard to get better value and a need of the team for that. Hill combined with others, on the other hand, might be different. Hill will be inherently limited in his ceiling I think. Defensively, he is too small to guard big sg, and too slow to guard the best pg.
Offensively, he will be a good-adequate multi-dimensional 3rd-4th scorer on a team. Hill is not the problem, but he might be redundant with the pieces we have enough so that he could be used in the proper trade to get a legit bigman.
Last edited by spursfaninla; 05-11-2010 at 12:10 PM.
The Spurs aren't going to trade Hill or Parker but if they have to trade one of them it would be Parker.
He will be a free agent in 2011 and he has a lot better trade value.
Christ! I know George had an unfortunate incident getting his trouser snake caught on film, but did he dae the same whilst he shat? He should probably avoid taking his dog and bone to the plopper. Just a daft display!
Maybe "schism" doesn't mean what I believe it to be, though?
Tad of help, please? Ta in advance.
Toodle pip!
as much as i wanted to rip George Hill's head off, i'd like the Spurs to keep him. gawd knows what his ceiling is... and no to trading Parker. that's just plain dumb.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
