Reply With Quote
Thats not up to me to decide. But obviously I dont want to just dump Parker, we need to get some value for him.
Both of them will run the point, sure. Similar to how Manu runs the offense at times even with Parker out there.
And quit saying "yall s" you stupid illiterate
Thats not up to me to decide. But obviously I dont want to just dump Parker, we need to get some value for him.
Both of them will run the point, sure. Similar to how Manu runs the offense at times even with Parker out there.
These are your trade scenarios. Show me a trade that actually works and I'll tell you if it's worth starting Hill at the "point."
If they don't want to suck, Manu will run the point.Both of them will run the point, sure. Similar to how Manu runs the offense at times even with Parker out there.
I don't know if it helps any cause buy these are Hills numbers when he started since 2010:
16 and 4. not great but the spurs were 26-19 in those games.
He is not as bad as ppl say but also not brilliant.
I watched the part were the Spurs still win when Parker is injured and Hill starts. I care about the Spurs winning not about Hill being a prototypical PG. Although he definitely isnt as bad as the Parker homers make him out to be.This guy is ing ridiculous. What a joke.
If you have eyes and watched Spurs games last season you'd know the offense suffers tremendously when Hill is running it. You want him in the starting lineup but fail to realize we have absolutely no backup PG and Hill can only somewhat run the offense when Manu is out there to pretty much initiate everything for him. All Hill does really is walk the ball up the court and pass it to Manu. He can't run a pick and roll to save his life and he is pretty bad at getting into the lane and finding the open man.
If Hill is starting at PG next season then it will become apparently obvious how one dimensional he is.
I'd have to see the splits for starting at the point.
I think most he did. this is including when parker was out that long stretch I think.
what ppl are not really realizing is that the FO is not pretending Hill will replace Parker's productivity. I think what they are trying to do is balance the team better and get "decent" young guys at all positions. Rather than 3 great players and a bunch of trash.
or maybe they are just thinking save money and rebuild
How awful for Spur's fans to be Parker homers. Horrible, just horrible.
Thats not up to me. All I know is that regardless of whether the Spurs want to give it one last shot by shaking things up (since its apparent this core can no longer get it done) or start the rebuilding...Hill needs to stay and moving Parker is the smart move.
If they dont want to suck Manu needs to shoulder some of the load, sure.If they don't want to suck, Manu will run the point.
Parker homers wont even consider that though, its all about Parker>Hill for them. Who cares if the team might improve with Hill at the point+players that would come in return for Parker and would balance out the team. Hill isnt a 3-time NBA Champion, multiple time All-Star, and Finals MVP. Thats all that matters.
Its horrible when the player comes before the team.How awful for Spur's fans to be Parker homers. Horrible, just horrible.
Weak. You can't even show one ing trade.
and lol none of this is up to you
what's your trade proposal Chump?
I'm not the one pushing a trade, genius.
so you have no solutions or even suggestions. thanks.
Because all the deals out there boil down to Parker for . Quit being in such a ing rush. Trade Parker next summer when it can net you a guy like Anthony Davis, Harrison Barnes, James McAdoo, Perry Jones, Quincy Miller, Jared Sullinger, Michael Gilchrist, Marquis Teague, Austin Rivers, etc. Someone who has a high ceiling. Parker is the only thing the Spurs have to make that kind of trade, and prospects like that aren't available in this draft after Irving and Williams.
What difference would it make if I did?This.
Show me something good. I'll get onboard.
Put the strawman back in the closet.
There are times when Tony is out there without Manu right? So compare the two situations.
Tony without Manu vs Hill without Manu.
The Spurs chances at sniffing a le are on life support right now. Personally I'd like to see them give it one last shot by shaking things up, and Parker is the only player with enough value (other than Tim/Manu who arent going anywhere) to possibly improve the Spurs enough to make that happen. So time isnt really on the Spurs side in that scenario. If the Spurs are still looking to contend then Parker needs to go this off-season, its not a necessity for him to go before the draft though. Especially when you consider how bad some of the trades being thrown out there are.
If theyre ready to rebuild, then I wouldnt be against waiting until next year's off-season for the right trade.
This isnt about Parker vs. Hill you Parker fanboy. I care about my Spurs winning not about which PG puts up better numbers. The Spurs still win when Hill has started due to Parker's injuries, and theres no reason to believe that would dramatically change and the Spurs would be a disaster if Parker were to be traded.
One last shot by trading a dollar for 3 quarters? Pure delusion.
The numbers show that the teams performance doesnt really change much when Tony is injured and Hill starts. We dont necessarily need to trade a dollar for a dollar to improve imo, patching up the glaring weaknesses in the frontcourt might do the trick. Quarters in place of nickels.
Do you think this core is done?Are you ready to rebuild?Not a diss, just wondering cause that probably has alot to do with your stance.
Not at all, especially since Hill is tested when it counts in the Playoffs right?
I see this place hasn't gotten any smarter about some things.
Exxxxxactly.
This is all that really matters. Call Hill whatever you like... a point guard, a combo guard, a shooting guard.. but he accomplishes the most important task a point guard has ... which is to make the other guys around him better basketball players. Parker not so much.[Manu’s numbers almost across the board are superior when playing with Hill instead of Parker. This pattern also holds true with Gary Neal. Neal is a much more efficient player with Hill creating shots for him. His +/- goes from a negative playing with Parker to a +4.5 playing with Hill.
You can say the same about Tim Duncan, McDyess and Matt Bonner with the +/- disparities. The only wing player who seems to benefit from Tony Parker on the floor is Richard Jefferson and that is because Tony will take the offensive responsibility off his shoulders.
/thread
Hill is still young and has more upside. You may be losing some solid veteran experience, but this all depends on what we are focusing on. Are we continuing the youth movement or are we still trying to compete for a championship? I personally think we should stick with this youth movement over hanging on this glimmering hope of getting another championship. We are stuck with RJ for the next few years because of the denial.
But in the end its all about value. All depends on what we would get in return with either player. Even though Parker is proven; I don't think we have seen the best of Hill yet. I wouldn't mind seeing the Spurs really change up the look of our Spurs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
