Official 2017 Offseason Thread

[TimDunkem]

I'd take Hill back if it meant shipping Parker's ass outta here. If the Spurs were able to keep Danny Green & get GH3, that would be a uva defensive starting unit.

Then trade LMA and sign Hayward.

[NASpurs]

[TimDunkem]

[r0drig0lac]

Then trade LMA and sign Hayward.

and Ingles

[SpursforSix]

Lol, still dreaming about the Parker trade that won't ever happen

yeah...but it sure is fun to pretend

[TimDunkem]

and Ingles

I can see a team offering him 10 mill a year, tbh. It's what Green got in a calmer market.

[NASpurs]

that, so long

[TimDunkem]

Yeah. Would rather not get tied up for four years with Hill.

[Chinook]

I can see Danny opting in and getting a max extension on top of that (essentially signing a $44.8M/4 deal), but I don't see them giving him a ton of money UNLESS he plays like he did in his last contract year. That Danny was a top-40 player in the league, and combined with Kawhi and either an improved supporting cast or at least one in their own contract years (Pau, Kyle, Bertans), and the team could be a lot better than it currently projects to be. If that happens, 31-year-old Green may get that bigger offer. But I'd still rather have to make the decision on keeping him then than moving him and paying Hill that now.

[gambit1990]

i wanted rubio over hill, just my luck the jazz would get him for a non-lottery pick

[TD 21]

Why do people keep projecting Green to get a huge pay raise? What on Earth has he done to warrant that? I don't hate Hill. But the team needs to get back to the movement/quick-post game they had back in their last le run. I'm not sure that Hill's the guy that can help take them there.

I can't get past the part when you said Danny's going to get 16 to 18 mil a year. No way.

Warrant has nothing to do with it. He's a 3 and D wing, of a (late) prime age and impressive playoff pedigree. It's supply and demand. Any team with even one dynamic creator would likely think they could get him shooting back at or over 40 from 3, too. Again, if Re goes for that, why wouldn't Green?

The team needs to get the best talent they can get, especially at guard. Of course, you'd like it to be better than Hill, but that doesn't appear to be the case. That he's a cultural fit (like it or not, that matters to them) and would fit with their two key building blocks helps too.

[Joseph Kony]

so he will sign for less than the max if it's longer term? hmmm

[Joseph Kony]

Warrant has nothing to do with it. He's a 3 and D wing, of a (late) prime age and impressive playoff pedigree. It's supply and demand. Any team with even one dynamic creator would likely think they could get him shooting back at or over 40 from 3, too. Again, if Re goes for that, why wouldn't Green?

The team needs to get the best talent they can get, especially at guard. Of course, you'd like it to be better than Hill, but that doesn't appear to be the case. That he's a cultural fit (like it or not, that matters to them) and would fit with their two key building blocks helps too.

Any team that is dumb enough to give Red 18-20 million is gonna regret it really fast.

[tmtcsc]

Oh nell no. that. I'm all for the Spurs spending Max money on Max players but Gill isn't that. Wait until next year if that's the case.

[TimDunkem]

so he will sign for less than the max if it's longer term? hmmm

He's increasingly injury prone and in his 30's. You sure you want him for four years around 20 mill a year?

[Joseph Kony]

It makes me wonder, why the are NBA GMs so re ed? I'm convinced 90% of ST could make better personnel decisions than the majority of FOs around the league. crofl at overpaying scrubs like Mozgov/Turner/S. Hill/Noah/etc and trying to dump them by the end of the season

[Joseph Kony]

He's increasingly injury prone and in his 30's. You sure you want him for four years around 20 mill a year?

no, not really, but it's not like Spurs have a lot of options to get better immediately at this point. The whole PG situation just sucks right now, hopefully Murray is the real deal otherwise we're ed

[gambit1990]

i already said it awhile back... sign livingston instead of hill.

2 years, $16 million instead of 4 years, $70 million.

[TimDunkem]

no, not really, but it's not like Spurs have a lot of options to get better immediately at this point. The whole PG situation just sucks right now, hopefully Murray is the real deal otherwise we're ed

Might as well just roll with Murray and a vet or two, imo.

[gambit1990]

Might as well just roll with Murray and a vet or two, imo.

exactly why i want livingston. hill isn't what's going to put us over the top... not worth paying what he wants.

[Joseph Kony]

The only positive with Hill is he has gotten a lot better shooting from distance and he is a good defender and can play PG/SG. Spurs could run lanky defensive combos with Murray/Hill/Green/Leonard

[RD2191]

As I said, why the would anyone want hill on this team?

[TimDunkem]

That's if he can stay on the court...But, again, locking him up for four years at his age on a big contract doesn't make sense for a team like the Spurs.

[look_at_g_shred]

Give me Hill @ 2 years 24 mill

[TimDunkem]

Give me Hill @ 2 years 24 mill

Yuck.