Reply With Quote
if this is too draft ed davis then no I would trade george hill
Pacers must deal their No. 10 pick for point guard
by Bob Kravitz
Forget the NBA draft.
The Indiana Pacers can take Xavier Henry, the slashing Kansas shooting guard who worked out for them Tuesday. They can move on Avery Bradley, the Texas combo guard who seriously impressed the Pacers brass this week. They can take 58-year-old Marvin Glickstein of the Jewish Community Center lunchtime pick-up game. Whoever.
Just get me a point guard this summer.
Option One: Get me Darren Collison of the New Orleans Hornets. Put him out there on day one and he's the Pacers' starting point guard for the next five years. He replaced the injured Chris Paul and averaged 18.8 points and 9.1 assists in 37 starts.
Option Two: Get me George Hill of the San Antonio Spurs. That's right, Broad Ripple's and IUPUI's George Hill. Spurs general manager R.C. Buford has stated publicly he's not moving Tony Parker, and Hill has progressed to the point where he needs a lot more minutes. For the right price -- the Pacers' No. 10 pick and another piece -- it's a deal that has a chance of happening.
Option Three: Get me Ty Lawson of the Denver Nuggets. He had a nice season backing up Chauncey Billups, averaging 20 minutes per game, 8.3 points and 52 percent shooting. Lawson averaged 17 points and 5.9 assists in eight starts. I don't see him as the sure-fire starting point guard of the future, not the way Collison or Hill would be, but he would be a serious upgrade on the Pacers' current motley crew.
Here's my fearless prediction of the day: By draft night, the Indiana Pacers will have a new point guard, and he won't come through the draft itself. It might be Collison, might be Hill, might be Lawson, but it's going to be somebody not named Ford, Watson or Price, and feel free to scream "Hallelujah!"
Everybody in the league knows the Pacers are not married to that No. 10 pick and the Pacers need a point guard like the Big 12 needs Texas. So the calls are coming in and going out.
If the Pacers want to put butts in the seats next season, if the Pacers want to be compe ive and interesting and worthy of our attention, they must make up for last year's draft-day failure to take a point guard (Lawson, Collison and others were available) and get one this summer.
The rumor most likely to become fact is the deal to trade the No. 10 pick to Denver for Lawson. Nuggets brass has made it clear it's looking for a top-10 pick to round out the team's front line, and there figure to be plenty of big guys out there at that spot: Ekpe Udoh, Ed Davis and others.
The word is, the Nuggets are talking to the Los Angeles Clippers at No. 7, but if nothing works there, it's likely the Lawson deal could get done here. Now, does Lawson fix all the point guard problems for the next five years? The jury is still out whether he's the starter on a playoff-caliber team. Is he a major upgrade on what the Pacers have, assuming Earl Watson bolts in free agency? Absolutely.
The deal I'd love to see is one that brings Collison to Conseco Fieldhouse, but that's going to be a significantly more difficult trade to pull off.
The Hornets absolutely have to move Collison -- there aren't enough minutes for him and Chris Paul to share -- but the organization also is over the luxury tax threshold and desperately needs to shed big contracts. New Orleans would surely insist on having the Pacers take back an onerous deal, something like Emeka Okafor's contract, which has four years remaining at roughly $42 million. And that would run counter to everything the Pacers have been trying to do these past four years.
So the question would be, do you move the No. 10 pick and Troy Murphy in the final year of his deal for Collison and three more years of an overpaid player's deal? I would grit my teeth, try everything to get Hill or Lawson first at a more reasonable price and then . . . do it. The Pacers have finished each of the past five seasons with a different point guard. It's time that stopped.
The Hill possibility is a delicious one, bringing the local kid home. The question is what the Spurs might want in return. Clearly, they need some youth to buttress an aging lineup, and that might mean packaging the No. 10 pick and Brandon Rush. I'd do it in a heartbeat; my opinion of Rush is not as high as the Pacers' view of him.
There won't be a worthy point guard at the No. 10 spot, the primary reason the Pacers are interested in divesting themselves of the pick. After John Wall, the best point is Eric Bledsoe, who figures to go around Nos. 20-25. If the Pacers don't move, they figure to get a shot at Henry, Davis, Udoh, Bradley or Fresno State's Paul George, all nice talents. But none plays the point.
This is the make-or-break summer, the produce-or-perish year for team president Larry Bird and coach Jim O'Brien and just about everybody in that front office. It's time to get to the point. Now.
if this is too draft ed davis then no I would trade george hill
Collison for the 10 and another guy would be smart by new Orleans. Trade from depth get more depth through lottery and fill must needs.
give us granger.
no to trading Hill for a pick. Hill's slowly becoming a large component of the team. If he's being traded, it needs to be for proven value.
I wouldn't trade Hill for the #10 pick straight up, but Hill for the #10 AND Brandon Rush? I would do it - especially if Elli0t Williams is indeed the Spurs pick at # 20. Williams could theoretically fulfill Hill's spot, and Rush is a 24 year old 6'6 swing man who can shoot the 3 (41%) and can be a solid defender (he averaged 0.8 blocks per game last year).
With the #10 pick you either draft a long SF (if Splitter comes) or a PF/C prospect (if Splitter doesn't come).
In order for the Spurs to vault into the true contender status again, we need to add competent, athletic players who provide depth. Trading one (Hill) for two (possibly Rush and Paul George) is a good start.
Personally, I don't think the Pacers would go for this trade. While Hill has proven his worth, he still isn't (and may never be) a pure point guard.
brandon rush sucks.
You're not gonna find a bigger Hill fan than myself and I'm in no way advocating for his departure. But if what Kori's said in the past is true, that the Spurs view Hill to be a 2 (and I have no reason to believe what she says isn't true), the possibility of acquiring Rush (a guy who's 6-6 in shoes and has nice length) and the 10th pick might be the right move to make, even if unpopular.
Rush could be one of the best potential 'Centerpieces' they could find for next year, as he's a solid defender and just got done shooting 40-percent from three. And if they're high enough on someone like George ... they could have the size and length set on their perimeter for a long time.
DX currently has Davis off the board at 10 and their doesn't seem to be a lot of separation between the prospects in that 10-20 range (DX's current 10-20: Ekpe Udoh, Patrick Patterson, Luke Babbitt, Avery Bradley, Cole Aldrich, Gordon Hayward, Paul George, Damion James, Hassan Whiteside, Daniel Orton, Larry Sanders), but the combination of Rush and one of those prospects could very well address more needs and put them in better position, both short and long-term, than Hill. Could.
I really don't want to see Hill go. He's one of my favorite players. But there's an argument to be made that it'd be best for the team if this deal could be done.
You people wouldn't trade Hill for the 10 pick and Rush?
lol homers
I agree that he will never be a "star," but we don't need another "star" right now. Rush provides consistent 3 point shooting and size at the 2/3 position, both of which were major issues for us vs. the Suns.
The # 10 pick is where we could potentially get a guy who can contribute right away and at the same time blossom into a "star" in the future.
George Hill would probably see a lot more minutes for the Pacers too. It would be an incredibly unpopular decision but the Spurs have a lot of gaps to fill and considering that Hill is basically a SG (dont' tell the rest of the NBA that he's a project PG)...that spot seems easily replaced in the NBA.
That said I don't see it happening considering all the positive stuff Pop has said about him (being the favorite player, etc)...then again could this have been some CIA masterplan work that not only motivates Hill to become better but also raises his stock across the league because of his high praise? Remember when Pop, Duncan's only NBA coach, called Pau Gasol the most skilled big man in the league? Everyone else from the media to coaches started to quote that this past season as well.
/tinfoil hat
The best thing about this hypothetical trade is that we could keep Tony Parker while at the same time add a lottery type talent. Going into the summer I thought we would have to give up Tony to move into the lottery.
If the Pacers are willing to bite on their hometown kid, I'd be thrilled.
Udoh sounds pretty friggin good right now. Or if we're confident with Splitter, maybe we go for Paul George. Or maybe a top-5 projected player slips... you never know.
What's wrong with that pick?
Is it cursed?
That shows how much the Pacer's FO sucks; the Spurs have drafted very good players with lower picks, and Indy wants to deal #10?
Hill is so overrated by this board it isn't funny. he had huge let-down games on the road this year, and faired okay against the good teams. and he is very, very inconsistent. his stock went up in the Dallas series, but he mostly just hit open shots. it would be an ENTIRELY different story if he met the very high expectations on the defensive end from him.
you trade him for the 10th pick, definitely. you can get a big with nice potential in this draft at that spot, or the needed defensive SF. the PG position is the easiest position to take care of in the NBA.
Cripes... I love George and all, but this would be pretty hard to pass up. It also happens to make a lot of sense.
So a kid that was drafted late first round and who many thought should have been drafted even later 2 years ago is now being thought of as worth more that the #10 pick? Im surprised at all the people overvaluing george and happy that the FO keeps finding these gems.
fify
If your thesis were true, this thread wouldn't even list the Spurs as potential trade partners... and this with Hill only a PG in training.
Hill and RJ for the #10 and Granger. The Pacers would have an expiring contract and could rebuild since Granger isn't a guy who single-handedly has made Indiana playoff eligible, and the Spurs would get their missing piece.
Teams love handing over guys like Granger to SA. Pull the f'n trigger Pop!!
If you can land Paul George for George Hill you have to pull that trigger. It makes even more sense if the Spurs plan on extending Parker.
, why be cheap.
Hill and RJ for Granger
Hill and RJ and the #20 for #10 and Granger
Hill and RJ and the #20 for Granger and a protected future 1st
If you can get the 10th pick and Rush for Hill, pull the damn trigger. The Spurs will get two quality picks to build for the future.
Agreed. I can't see the Pacers giving up the tenth pick and Rush for Hill, but if they did, that would be awfully difficult to turn down. To have the ability to add Rush, one of George, Davis, etc. at ten and then another quality player at twenty (if they go with a wing at ten, then they could take a big at twenty or vice versa), that right there, along with signing Splitter, could have this team set going into next season and with a nice nucleus of good young talent to build with going forward. Other options would be to package ten and twenty to either move up even higher or to add an established, good young player.
Even if they had to exchange first-rounders and make it essentially Hill for Rush, I think that's probably the prudent move for the Spurs to make if they believe in the player they can get at 10.
Indiana would be getting the best player, probably both short and long-term (as I'm not informed enough to tell you how good those 10-20 players are this year -- I just didn't see enough), but Rush fills a need immediately and would likely be much better than anyone they could get at 20. Then it's down to the 10 and Hill and even if that pick never manages to be as good as Hill, he'd seemingly be a pretty nice player at a position of greater need; or he'd at least have the body to play the position he was deemed of being.
If Paul George is really a player and someone who could eventually turn into a borderline star or even just a starter and they get a proven guy like Rush to go alongside of him, that really could turn out quite well: George envisions himself as a 6-8 shooting guard and Rush's offensive game falls right in line with a Spurs small forward. They could potentially have found the size and skill on the wing for the present and future with one fell swoop.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
