Murphy can't be any worse than Bonner defensively.. His rebounding #'s alone put him light years ahead. Whatever else is lacking he'd more than make up for with his potent offensive game which would probably open up even more in the spurs' offensive scheme.
A Murphy/Duncan starting frontcourt is solid and allows McDyess to be moved to that 3rd big position off the bench to help Blair out in the 2nd unit, which is a more natural fit for him at this stage of his career.
I speculate that a draft day trade has probably been verbally pre-arranged for a while now, they're likely just waiting until thursday to make it official. Parker might have even known it for a while also which would explain his ignorance towards Spurs fans in the airport incident. Why would he care about PR towards a Spurs fan if he knows he's on his way out?... who knows........
Last edited by G-Dawgg; 06-22-2010 at 01:38 AM.
Don't do the whole post-count .
don't really care too much for george hill...trade him
The whole "noob" and low post-count comments are ing tiresome. If Bill Russell or Coach K signed up for spurstalk tomorrow and gave a few opinions, inevitably some meathead with 15,000 posts would condescendingly tell him he doesn't know anything about the NBA. Argue knowledge and facts... this whole you don't waste as much time on the internet as I do angle is ing stupid.
It's not knowing all..It's common sense..
Get a clue
quote: Who the are these new guys acting like know it alls... WTF?!?!?
they're longtime posters who made upnew screen names so they don't get dogged out for their opinions...lol
thats called getting youth in the roster instead of vets......
trading timmy, manu, TP for picks and young players is considered "rebuilding"
I wonder if EricD is serious
almost blasphemy, but point on.
they are both good and could become even better, but neither will be crucial for the Spurs future. Hill will become a good rotation player and even decent starter, but he won't impact the game like Tony does. and Blair will as well become a decent rotation player and stat stuffer. but his limited size and likely never more than average defense will prevent that he becomes kind of the new cornerstone of the front court. IMO he will never be more than a 3rd man in the big rotation.
that said: I don't want to get rid of any of the two, but like Harlem said...for the right offer.....
btw. could it be a point that Hill is from Indianapolis when they talk trade with the Pacers?
For what it's worth, I've tweeted to chad ford asking him about what he's heard, lol :p.. Maybe if enough people ask him about the Spurs trade rumor he's talked about, he'd be willing to give up a bit more info..
http://twitter.com/chadfordinsider
About Hill, I definitely think he has it in him to be an elite PG or a very good one at least. Everyone says he's a SG in PG's body, bull . He has good enough ball handling and passing skills, he has a steady jumper which he's getting better at and can hit the 3 consistently, and he can drive into the lane and score or kick out. The more he plays as a PG, the better he'll get, its simple.
I don't think he will ever be able to be a full time SG in the NBA because of his size disadvantage at that position, he's simply not tall enough or strong enough for most SG's (who are generally 6ft5 and up). As a starting PG, he generally did well and there's no reason not to expect even more major improvements if he is a Spur next season.
As for a comparison with Parker, for sure Parker is much better and a more natural PG, but he comes at a much higher cost and after this summer he will surely be looking at a max contract which the Spurs simply can't really afford after giving Manu the max for 3 years (I found this way too high for Manu, despite his unbelievable talent). Hill has been in the league for just 2 years and is doing great and has improved a great deal. Parker had many problems and inconsistencies even until his 3rd and 4th year as a starter for SA.
At the end of the day, like many others, I don't see the point of trading Hill to be honest. His salary is too low, there's nothing much we can get by trading him unless he goes with RJ in a multi-player deal. He is simply much much cheaper to keep than Parker is. On the other hand, Parker has a easily trade-able contract and many teams are interested in him for obvious reasons. I would not be shocked to see him traded at any point this season. I think we may gain a lot by trading Parker for the right pieces, and I do see Hill as a capable starter at PG for the future.
Anyways, this is a business after all, if he does go he will surely be missed...
Blair was a 2nd round steal.
Hill was a late first round steal.
Mahinmi has been a late first round bust.
Harry, Temple, and Gee are roster fillers.
Did the Spurs go out of their way to acquire any one of these guys? Did they move an aging player with a big contract for any of these guys? That's not rebuilding friendo, that's getting extremely lucky twice in the draft.
Some Grist to the Parker/Hill Trade Mill -
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...hris_paul.html
Nets are willing to trade Devin Harris + No. 3 for Chris Paul. That means, they could try a similar trade for Parker as well.
Chad Ford's latest tweet:
I'm on SportsCenter at 8:40 am ET followed by Mike and Mike at 9:10 am ET talking draft. Tune In!
http://twitter.com/chadfordinsider
As i'm not in the States, would appreciate anybody updating us with any Spurs related info he says.. show started now as it is 8:42am already
It's right on 9:10 ET now, and I'm watching Mike and Mike...I'll post what I hear.
They took a 5-minute commercial break (of course), but Chad Ford is on now.
I've not read the last 5 pages of the thread. From observation,
Trading Parker makes no sense. He is in his contract year, and he is a premium guard.
1. He has been playing for spurs for his whole nba career, and suddenly, trading him is a good option? It takes time for another guard to be accustomed to the spurs plays and what not, I don't think Hill is a legit playmaker. I don't think Manu's legs will help him in anyway.
2. Even when trading for another legit point guard will be a hassle for the whole team. The pg will be handling the ball for large periods of the game, players need to get familiar with the plays that the pg will run. And learning a whole new system, especially the pg position, take loads and loads of time. We don't want the chemistry of the team to plunge.
Hill on the other hand, is expandable. While he is a good role player, and might be an all star on another team. he does not "fit" into the spurs system.
1. His pick and roll is not as solid as it needs to be, his defence on pick and rolls is also not good. He is a liability on the defensive end, getting torched by Nash was an example.
2. He is an undersized 2, the spurs is already having trouble keeping up with the size of the lakers, Imagine next season, when our line up for closeouts would be Parker, Hill, Manu, Splitter (Or Dice) and Duncan. Small ball? We need size, and Hill does not give us size.
When splitter hopefully comes, Spurs will be legit, no doubt. But trading parker would make us mid cards again.
These are Ford's comments:
Cousins is a very polarizing player (some think he's the best in the draft, some wouldn't touch him); Ford loves him. He even thinks Cousins can shoot the NBA 3-pointer!
The biggest reach is Greg Monroe (best passing big man in the draft, not a great athlete), definitely should not be taken ahead of Cousins.
Wall is the easy #1, a slightly better version of Derrick Rose and a better passer than Rondo.
A decent-sized dropoff to Turner at #2 (I guess Ford assumes Turner will go #2). Gives Brandon Roy as Turner's ceiling.
There are 5 difference-makers in the draft: Wall, Cousins, Turner, Favors, and Wes Johnson (says that Favors is raw and a few years away still).
He's done? Or that's just the first part?
Let us know if he makes any Spurs comments...
I'll just keep posting as they go; I'm just posting what I hear so far.
Ford thinks it's a deep draft, even down to pick #40. His mock has Wall/Turner/Favors/Johnson/Cousins/Monroe in that order as the top 6.
There are no home-run players after those 6.
Paul George has the most star potential after those 6, Ford compares him to T-Mac. Even so, George didn't ever dominate even in the WAC, seems supremely talented, but perhaps disinterested.
...and, that's it. No mention of the Spurs, sorry.
Thanks a bunch..
independent of the points made in this thread, i just feel the need to point out that chad ford is consistently worse at his job than probably anybody on this board is at theirs. you could stockpile encyclopedia sized volumes filled with the bad (and often ridiculous) information and predictions that he has made over the years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
