Reply With Quote
This guy was ing spot on. Props SpurCharger.
Chump is . He simply stated facts, not a single word about how he expected the trade to hurt/help the team. Nothing impressive about that in my opinion.
This guy was ing spot on. Props SpurCharger.
Props to ElNoNo. He correctly, and immediately, identified the essential elements of the trade and patiently tried to explain them to those that didn't understand. Perhaps not to great effect, but the effort was there.
this one is full of win.
Manu also playing like (or not playing at all). Would you trade him also?Parker was playing like at the start of the season, I wouldve taken Hill over him for those first few weeks. Kawhi has proved alot of people, including me, wrong though...this was definitely a solid trade for the Spurs.
DPG wrong about dat Leonard.
DPG. ted on multiple times in this thread.
What are people talking about? I said with RJ on the roster, Kawhi here over a proven player made little sense and that it was mainly financial (not paying Hill is still the case and Kawhi is cheaper for a few more years). RJ then got traded, so that only helped my case.
The fact the Spurs were able to luck into trading RJ doesn't mean I was wrong. Kawhi wasn't playing as much nor starting while RJ was on the roster.
In hindsight anyone is always right.
RJ did continue to play, to the tune of the 2nd most minutes on the team until he was traded and only then did that open up the opportunity to have Kawhi start.
I said quite the opposite.
Essentially the thing I was really wrong about was RJ and the ability to be moved. He was playing just as I said, but everything else was pretty on. Now with RJ being traded (which despite getting a better player in Jax back, this was purely a financial move), Kawhi has grown and the team looks great.
When the trade was made, the point was valid and I understood the logjam/financial reasoning.
It's not embarrassing to call what happened, which I did, when I said RJ wouldn't be glued to the bench and Kawhi would not take his minutes when others said otherwise.
The thing I was wrong about was that RJ could be moved as he was (even though I said to many people that it wasn't impossible because it would take a bad contract for bad contract or an issue player) as Chump pointed out as well.
I was referencing the fact everyone said RJ was untradeable (which I thought, but not as fervently as most others) and that was what I was really harping on from the beginning when discussing Kawhi's possible impact with RJ on the roster as I said he would continue to get large minutes.
No, I love Manu.
Actually RJ is a very valuable piece to a tanking team.
Also noone expected Kawhi to be this good, this soon. So its not really embarrassing to have questioned the move and its lack of direction at the time. You dont normally trade an established player like Hill for a young unproven rookie if youre still trying to compete. Kawhi just happened to go against the norm cause hes a stud.
So much fail in thread
Hill over Parker
Singleton over Leonard
Parker has one of the the best years of his career carrying an injury-plagued Spurs to the top and Hill proves he can't play the point in Indy as we already knew.
Singleton has 0 offensive game (44%TS and 8 PER), his defensive game did not translate to the NBA as everyone expected while Leonard is a top10 rookie and will be part of the 1st all-rookie team
Oh man some Spurs fans are truly pathetic and Parker is the most unappreciated Spurs ever easily.
Yes. I even said that in a bubble, Hill for Kawhi made plenty of sense because Kawhi would likely be as good as Hill talent wise and would be cheaper for a few year. The questions were about giving up a somewhat proven and young player for a questionable asset basketball wise when you are doing a contend/re-build on the fly type deal. Especially when you had limited trade assets. I thought RJ was somewhat untradeable, but not as much as many others. The fact the Spurs were able to find the single dumbest team in the NBA to take RJ on and pay a premium to do so is luck. Thank God.
I was referencing what Brazil said about your statement regarding the move being strictly financial. At the time I think your were right. The Spurs knew that Hill wasn't in the plans for the future and didn't want to pay him...so the rolled the dice on a good prospect...one they had scouted out well(though no one found out about that until later). No one could have called what happened with RJ. Heck, someone in another thread even put the RJ/Buckets trade up and said, "Since we are dreaming..."
Exactly. Same with the RJ trade. It was financial and I firmly believe they would make the move regardless of who they got back. The fact they brought in Jax as the guy and he's turned out to be a good fit overall is just a bonus. Not that it takes away from the fact they improved the team, but it wasn't purely a basketball move, it was easily mainly a financial one that had the bonus of being a positive basketball wise.
The gambles to save money and improve at the same time came up Ace's so far and that's awesome.
What had Hill really established?
That he had peaked below expectations?
That's an argument for trading for someone who hasn't yet.
George Hill had no place on this team. He couldn't get enough time at PG and was not an effective 2.
The Spurs made this trade and basically the worst-case scenario happened: They suddenly ended up critically thin at point guard. One would think that this would, on some level, make the Hill trade a mistake. There's not a single person at this point who even entertains that idea. Even if it had been a straight-up swap, it's still a huge win for the Spurs.
We would be thin at point guard with or without Hill simply because he isn't a PG.
Considering the fact that he wants 7.5m/year i'd say it's a huge victory for us. He is not worth this kind of money at all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
