Reply With Quote
Yes, but that's partially my point. Why should the Spurs make a deal for a player they know nothing about? Why wouldn't Indiana take a gamble on Anderson to see if it pays off? Indiana had nothing to lose and everything to gain from this trade.
I'm not convinced DPG doesn't understand how he comes off. He does this all the time. No one is saying anything about a huge move, but the fact is that Hill is going to be overpaid next year barring an amazing CBA for the owners. He's the exact type of player that always ends up getting huge contracts and underperforms. They got excellent value for him.
Yes, but that's partially my point. Why should the Spurs make a deal for a player they know nothing about? Why wouldn't Indiana take a gamble on Anderson to see if it pays off? Indiana had nothing to lose and everything to gain from this trade.
Why should the Pacers make a deal for a player they know nothing about?
Pretty god damn hard to say that trading hill for 2 draft picks and a prospect isn't going to help you rebuild. Exactly what type of value where you expecting for George Hill?
Why the would anyone say the Spurs know nothing about Leonard???
You think they make picks simply by pulling names out of a hat?
They think the Spurs know less about basketball than they do.
Because the Spurs know everything they need to know about the player they had (Hill), and they know that A) He won't help them get better and B) He might walk away after one season for nothing in return.
So they decided to take a gamble to see if this move improves them, and they get something in return for him. Anderson is on a rookie deal for 4 more years (2 of which are a team option, and last one is a QO).
I'm just floored by someone saying they can't see how this would help the team rebuild. Yeah, I have no idea how trading for a 20 year old, an 18 year old, and keeping your draft pick to pick up another 20 year old might just help with rebuilding.
And I don't even know how old that Euro that was part of the trade is but I'd assume he's not exactly old either.
I think your exaggerating a bit. What makes you think he was in line for a huge pay day? I wouln't give him more than 4-5 mil/per. He has his limitations. Assuming Parker will be gone at seasons end, it's very doable.
You just contradicted yourself. Its okay for Indiana to take a gamble, but not the Spurs?
I find it very funny you think George Hill was going to accept an offer less than the full MLE.
Lorbek is like 27, but could conceivably play a limited role in the NBA. Certainly didn't hurt to get his rights.
Everyone else is young as . Isn't this what people have been ing about for years?
I think Hill is a better player than Barbosa, for instance, who makes something like 7 or 8 million per.
That's what I think he's worth.
Great, do you know what OVERpaid means?
MaxSportsSA Maximum Sports
RC Buford says trading George Hill was one of the "most difficult" things the Spurs have done since he's been there.
Wrong.... I said the Spurs shouldn't be the one taking the gamble. They're holding the cards. Indiana was never in a position to gamble.
We don't know what the next CBA is going to look like, so we don't know under which cap conditions we're going to be in. Between Manu, Tony and RJ (not counting TD since his contract would come off the books, IIRC) there's a lot of guaranteed money there. Hill would be a RFA after next season, meaning that if some team comes around and throws stupid money at him, the Spurs might not be even able to match and we end up empty handed.
If you look at the guards making between 8 million and 10 million a year its not hard to picture in that list. And to be honest, George Hill making 8 million on the Spurs makes me pretty sick.
Holding what cards? The 1st round exit with an aging core cards?
haha! Nice.
How about this for a salary comparison: Bonner 3 million. Automatically means Hill gets at least double. Speaking of sick salaries...8 million for RJ, apparently Manu is only worth 3 million more
One positive I can think of with the Hill trade; hopefully less chance of a 3 guard backcourt: The Spurs tried to use Hill as a SF in some situations in those 3 guard line ups. He did a decent enough job, but I felt sometimes the Spurs relied too much on his "length" in small ball line ups.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
