That doesn't make sense and is not at all what I meant. Did the Spurs give up a proven player in a trade to get Hill?
The point is this move, at this point, caused the Spurs to go backwards from a contending standpoint and didn't do anything to improve rebuilding efforts.
Do you understand that particular aspect?
Not in their entirety. Have you ever known their plans in their entirety?This draft? Probably to play Leonard and Joseph and leave the Euros in Europe. Is it that difficult for you to figure out?What are the Spurs plans?I think they play different positions. Do you think they play the same position?How good will Leonard be compared to Hill.
I understand you want to put the trade in the worst possible light possible. That's OK.
So you don't know their plans either. I appreciate your honesty as well.
Link?
I understand you want to take what I said and not understand it just like you don't understand the Spurs plans and put it in the worst light possible. For what reasons I don't know however.
Honestly, i'm surprised by people getting upset with the trade of Hill. We had way too many combo guards getting minutes in the rotation as is. If anything he potential helps fill a need with Leonard taking minutes at the 3. Not to mention potentially more minutes for someone like Anderson and Neal. With Danny Green and DaSean Butler also walking into training camp with Joseph as well i'm already a bit excited to see the season start with the spurs.
Not to mention we haven't even gotten in the off season signings and trades further yet. They may not do anything spectacular with signings or trades on further but they did a bang up job drafting tonight I think with level of talent in the draft.
Link to your not understanding and trying to on the trade?
Last page.
Hill was horse in the playoffs. How does a backup regular season PG help our team win. I think getting Leonard/Joseph is much better prospect for next season and beyond then having Hill. I don't believe we went backwards with the trade.
You know they didn't. How can you be proven if you haven't played an NBA minute. This was a bogus trade, which some think was in an effort to prolong Parker's stay of execution. Parker's gone in the next offseason when Duncan retires and you lose two proven talents instead of one.
Although, I could be all wrong. This could be the beginning stages to lure Dwight Howard over from the Magic for Bonner and Splitter.
I'm setting the over/under for Leonard's playing time next season at :30 sec/game. How does that help the Spurs next season? How does Hill's play in one playoff series against the Grizz where no Spur played up to expectations have to do with anything?
A trade doesn't always have to be player A is replacing player B. We're shipping Hill because out of the bunch of 2 guards we had that were expendable (Hill/Neal/Anderson), Hill was the one that would bring back more value in return. So we used that value to relax the logjam at the 2 and shore up a bit the very thin 3 position.
IMO, the backcourt rotation right now most likely would be: Tony/Neal start, Manu/Anderson backup. If Anderson is not really cutting it, you could play Corey/Manu as backup for small stretches, and we're likely to close games with Tony/Manu. I only see Corey playing if Manu/Tony need some extended rest or somebody is hurt.
I think that's still as good a backcourt rotation as any that included Hill. It might be a bit weaker on defense, but you also don't get a ball stopper in Hill.
The difference now though is at the 3. Richard will likely get the bulk of the minutes, but when he sits down we can actually play a legit SF instead of having to trot another guard out there. It's not going to be for a lot of minutes, but it allow our other players to play in the positions they play best at. You're also bringing somebody that seemingly can contribute without needing to get touches on the ball.
As I indicated above, Spurs still need to retool further if they want to be contenders. This move doesn't get them closer. I don't think it takes them farther either. They basically got seemingly better than D-League talent and more financial flexibility. There's just more work to do in the offseason.
It should have been Anderson in that trade.
Link, and I want it highlighted or underlined where I said I was mad or where I said I'm ting on the trade.
If not, I want a formal written apology in comic sans double spaced that is 456 words long.
Maybe. But that's $600K less, and Indy most likely doesn't know what they're getting with Anderson, thus they don't do the trade. Then we're stuck with the same logjam at 2 and no backup at 3. Sometimes you just need to take a gamble and see if it pays off.
El Nono, I get the logic of moving something bc there's a log jam. What I'm not seeing is anything close to a direction overall. Like I said, it's not colossal in either direction giving up Hill foe Leonard, it's just a move that in isolation doesn't actually move the team anywhere either way at the moment
I also should add that financially speaking, Anderson makes more sense to keep. The Spurs had to extend a qualifying offer to Hill after next season and then match if somebody offered more. With the Spurs having a lot of money already guaranteed there's a real possibility they couldn't keep him.
I'm banking on RJ being gone with the new CBA's amnesty clause. Leonard could potentially be our starting SF. If not, he comes off the bench for Butler. Hill/Anderson will also play more minutes with Hill gone.
But the way your coming across is that Leanard is replacing Hill, which is not the case, because Hill's replacement is already on the roster in Neal and Anderson. Hill is a solid player, but because of Neal, his loss is not a huge detriment imo. How much better do you think Hill is than Neal? Hill's a better defender, but Neal at least competes hard on the defensive end. Your not losing anything on the offensive end with Hill either. Anderson will also benefit with the departure of Hill.
lol backwards
You said it was moving backward.
lol backtracking from backward
Where you expecting a "colossal" move?
its a lateral move that will eventually clear some cap space and increase depth at the 3. makes sense to me
I think the direction is trying to get lucky and find another gem that can help an aging core make it over the top. To do that you need to bring new prospects that have the potential to grow and make a quality jump within our team's environment.
I think Hill reached his ceiling as far as what he could give to our team. He wasn't going to be that gem. In Indiana he's going to have a different opportunity, and perhaps he'll grow further as a player into whatever role he's going to have there.
He sure made a movement on this board.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
