Draft Express: Spurs offering Hill for high draft picks

[SenorSpur]

Just heard on espn, per Bucher, that the Spurs want Sac's, or Tornonto's lottery pick to take Klay Thompson. Hmmm...

Yuck. I don't like this guy at all. Yet another unathletic, one-dimensional, spot-up shooter, who is a poor defender.

This had better be a smokescreen.

[DPG21920]

Also, clearly shooting/scoring was the Spurs problem. Even if it's Hill for him, it's silly. Hill is probably the Spurs best 3PT shooter (outside of Bonner) so replacing him for shooting is just silly.

[TJastal]

Gotta pretty shot.

Reminds me a tad of Ray Allen's jumper. I wonder if this means fat-boy Anderson is getting shipped out?

[MaNu4Tres]

Kid has game.

[ohmwrecker]

Hill the best wing defender on the team?

Who's better?

[GB20]

when was the last time the spurs make a trade during draft night?

[baseline bum]

Who's better?

Parker is a lot better, for one. Hill's got long arms and should be a great defensive player, but he gets lost in screens too much. He's only a good defensive option against players who straight iso a lot.

[DesignatedT]

Hill for Thompson would be an interesting swap. Not sure what the reasoning would be behind it.

[DPG21920]

Kid has game.

So does Mike Miller and Marco Belinelli; would you contemplate anything close to giving up TP for that? What about Hill?

What need does he address?

[DPG21920]

Hill for Thompson would be an interesting swap. Not sure what the reasoning would be behind it.

That is kind of my point. It's like, where are you really improving, what need is it filling and if you can't really answer that, why take the risk when you know Hill is an NBA player?

[DesignatedT]

Hill and RJ for the 7 is what is most likely being offered IMO.

[lurker23]

Klay Thompson just feels like a smokescreen. Color me highly skeptical.

[ohmwrecker]

Parker is a lot better, for one. Hill's got long arms and should be a great defensive player, but he gets lost in screens too much. He's only a good defensive option against players who straight iso a lot.

Tony's not a great pn'r defender either and is pretty limited in matchups. Hill can guard bigger players. I think Hill has good defensive instincts that a rookie will more than likely lack. Is Klay Thompson a better defender?

[DPG21920]

Hill and RJ for the 7 is what is most likely being offered IMO.

that isn't very enticing. Hill for the 7th is a stretch, although not terrible. Taking on RJ as well? C'mon.

[Bruno]

So since we're hearing these reports, does that mean it definitely ISN'T Klay Thompson they're interested in?

If Spurs have targeted someone, they will create smokescreens around him. The more rumors about who Spurs target, the less likely other teams will know who is their guy.

Another option is that Spurs haven't someone targeted. Instead of being attracted by a specific player, they are attracted by the fact you can get a lottery pick without giving a lot. Spurs could have judge that all the weak draft talk is vastly exaggerated. In a not that bad draft, getting a lottery pick for Hill could be a golden opportunity.

[DesignatedT]

Probably right. Could very well be a smokescreen. I just don't see it.

[DesignatedT]

that isn't very enticing. Hill for the 7th is a stretch, although not terrible. Taking on RJ as well? C'mon.

yeah very true. I just can't help but think that this is all centered around getting rid of RJ. I just don't see why the Spurs would want to trade Hill for a rookie SG straight up .

[DPG21920]

Another option is that Spurs haven't someone targeted. Instead of being attracted by a specific player, they are attracted by the fact you can get a lottery pick without giving a lot. Spurs could have judge that all the weak draft talk is vastly exaggerated. In a not that bad draft, getting a lottery pick for Hill could be a golden opportunity.

Like usual, I have no idea what the Spurs will do on draft night. With all the smoke around selling the pick + RC's comments about improving via trade, it's hard to make anything out. There are some things that work in theory, but when you are always drafting with late picks like the Spurs, it leaves a lot of room for volatility.

It's hard to imagine the Spurs keeping the pick in a weak draft, but I can also see a scenario where they trade up for a guy they really like. If it's a weak draft and there is somehow a discount to move up, a team like the Spurs with great scouts could see an opportunity to steal someone that is undervalued.

I said the same thing, Bruno. I was just looking at it from a strict value proposition. If you are good at something that is rare, you have a compe ive advantage. Just because it's a weak draft, doesn't mean there can't be solid (but not spectacular) players. If you are able to move up at a discount because it's a "weak draft" and other teams know they don't scout well, it just means good value.

[TimmehC]

If this is a smokescreen, it's a really ty one.

[DPG21920]

yeah very true. I just can't help but think that this is all centered around getting rid of RJ. I just don't see why the Spurs would want to trade Hill for a rookie SG straight up .

Exactly. I haven't heard anything besides offering Hill for a lottery pick that makes sense. But if that lottery pick is just for Thompson, even that doesn't make sense.

[TD 21]

If Spurs have targeted someone, they will create smokescreens around him. The more rumors about who Spurs target, the less likely other teams will know who is their guy.

Another option is that Spurs haven't someone targeted. Instead of being attracted by a specific player, they are attracted by the fact you can get a lottery pick without giving a lot. Spurs could have judge that all the weak draft talk is vastly exaggerated. In a not that bad draft, getting a lottery pick for Hill could be a golden opportunity.

All of this could be true.

But everyone seems to be ignoring this: supposedly the Spurs are very fond of Anderson, so it would make sense that they like Thompson, who's of a similar ilk. Starting four is clearly the biggest need and the one they've talked most about. So if they're able to land Thompson, it frees them up to package Anderson with McDyess and Blair for a starting four. Then at 29, they could pick Cole (or another point, if he's gone), to replace Hill.

That way, they get their starting four (whoever that may be), while replacing Anderson and Hill with similar players and they reset the clock, so to speak. Because Hill's due a significant raise next season.

[MaNu4Tres]

Also, clearly shooting/scoring was the Spurs problem. Even if it's Hill for him, it's silly. Hill is probably the Spurs best 3PT shooter (outside of Bonner) so replacing him for shooting is just silly.

Gary Neal isn't that bad of a shooter is he?

[DPG21920]

^ He slipped my mind. Point remains.

[SenorSpur]

All of this could be true.

But everyone seems to be ignoring this: supposedly the Spurs are very fond of Anderson, so it would make sense that they like Thompson, who's of a similar ilk. Starting four is clearly the biggest need and the one they've talked most about. So if they're able to land Thompson, it frees them up to package Anderson with McDyess and Blair for a starting four. Then at 29, they could pick Cole (or another point, if he's gone), to replace Hill.

That way, they get their starting four (whoever that may be), while replacing Anderson and Hill with similar players and they reset the clock, so to speak. Because Hill's due a significant raise next season.

I hope this is nothing but a smokescreen. I would find it hard to believe they would like Thompson more than Anderson. I just think Thompson is overrated - especially by this franchise. The Spurs need an athletic PF - not another slow-footer, unathletic, one-dimensional 2-guard.

[MaNu4Tres]

^ He slipped my mind. Point remains.

I honestly think Neal and Anderson are more than capable to fill in the void left by Hill on both ends of the floor if Hill is traded for a late lottery pick.