how things have changed for the spurs it wasn't long ago that i was wishful thinking they gonna win no. 5 with those guys as supporting crew ...
then ....
neal
green
leonard
jack
diaw
mills
happened....
i thinkis not too far fetch an idea tbh
Well, you can't put all these players in the same category.
Hill was a very good Spur but losing him to get Leonard was worth it.
I'm glad that RJ, RMJ, Bogans and Udoka are gone. They sucked as Spurs.
Quinn and Novak were end of the bench players. Nothing wrong with them and Novak has been great with Knicks this year.
I would gladly welcome back Hairston this summer to take James Anderson roster spot
spot on i just had to mention quinn coz mills is an upgrade
where does hairston play nowadays?
Italy.
NOVAK
is better then booner
matt has beeen a surprise this year though
negative...ur only looking at his shooting...novak can't play d worth crap...bonner is way better than novak
Hill played great vs Dallas in 2010.
Danny ferry is the man
At what level? And how is Malik doing ??
Malik is a scrub, but he looked like he knew what to do he just didn't have the skill set
He is playing with very good teams that plays the Euroleague. He has had some health issue with a bad back last year and with his Achilles tendon this year. When he was healthy, he's been very good.
I'm not pushing for Spurs to sign him but he could be an option this summer if he is a free agent or if he has a NBA opt out clause in his contract.
it was reported that Malik has signed a two years contract with Milano, so he won't become a FA in 2012. it wasn't reported, if the contract has a NBA opt out clause though.
considering the development of Green and Leonard and the fact that Spurs will have Manu, Sjax and Neal under contract for 2012-13, I can't see them bring back Malik 2012 anyhow. 2013 might be a totally different situation, when the contracts of Manu, Sjax and Neal expire.
Kawhi and Green give us the young athletic wing role we thought Hairston could fill.
Would u rather have green or hill?
For this team, Green. Hill is the better overall player, but was pretty much redundant to what Parker/Manu/Neal provide.
Hill didn't fit in the mosaic.
Overlapping skills no enhancement affects on other players.
Glad he's doing well with Indiana.
If Hill wasn't very good, the Spurs wouldn't have been able to trade him for a player the caliber of Kawhi Leonard. Nor would he be the starting PG for a pretty good Pacers team right now...............
Disagree. Kawhi was a rookie and although he was one of the top guys that the Spurs were looking for, the trade didn't prove Hill's worth as high as you think it was.
Sure it did. If George Hill wasn't a good player, he wouldn't have been as big a part in the Spurs rotation as he was, nor would the Pacers have traded a pretty good draft pick for him. I still trade him for Kawhi Leonard 10 times out of 10, but that doesn't mean he's not a good player.
I know he was a good player, yes, being involved in a Spurs rotation proves that you are worth it that you have great bball IQ, and balanced skills. But you're example didn't proved your point. I mean, a 6th man on a good team traded for a rookie proves that that player is good? I think no. And yes, in hindsight I still trade Hill for Kawhi 10/10 times.
There is a perverse sentiment that exists where it is necessary to diminish the abilities of a player when comparing them to another player that is favored by the individual drawing the comparisons, as if it lent more credibility to their opinion.
But if you really think about it, by devaluing the compe ion, then the achievement of the other player being better... also loses its grandeur.
I saw Hill as a Solid role player. Not 'good', but above average overall. Just not what we needed.
Flawed analysis. We traded Hill for a LOTTERY PICK. It takes a pretty good player to net you a pick that good. I do NOT mean a star, because a star will net you a top 10 pick. We traded a decent rotation player, and good player overall.
Funny to compare Green to Hill, since we traded him for Leonard, but Leonard really plays 3/4, so you can't compare them as well. Regardless, the 3 position, and small 4 position, were a much bigger concern for our team defensively than the 1 and 2.
All that said, Hill was not what we really needed; he provided good defense at the 1 (although scorched by Nash), short to defend the 2, good ball handling for a 2, poor ball handling for the 1 (at the time, evidently he is good now), and scoring skills that including slashing, creating off the dribble, spot up shooting, and 3pt shooting.
What we needed more was excellent defense at the 1 and 2, with more height to defend bigger sgs. Green is a better, bigger defender than Hill, but Hill is a better passer (pg) and creator. Green really can't play the 1.
Still, Green fits our needs better.
My point was to disagree with the poster who said that George Hill wasn't any good and wouldn't have gotten traded if he was.
He was traded for a guy one pick away from being a lottery pick. It's not like the Spurs dumped him for some no name second round draft pick. No doubt Leonard has suprassed expectations this year, but the Spurs still thought they were acquiring a guy who would be their starting small forward in the not too distant future.
Malik Hairston
It's unbelievable how many of you all had man-crushes on that scrub. He's not even good enough to make an NBA roster, and you geniuses thought he should have been a starter for the Spurs???!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
