Reply With Quote
I think you and I realize that he's a versatile SG, but Pop did what he did in game one and it can't be undone. Personally, I can only go by what Pop does, and he's made Hill the backup point guard on this team.
Your questions are argumentative, refute nothing, and are therefore irrelevant. The fact that Pop views him as a point guard, backup or otherwise, should be highly concerning. That Pop made him the point guard over Parker in the most important game of the season absolutely cannot be overlooked when making guesses about future valuation of both players by the coach.
I think you and I realize that he's a versatile SG, but Pop did what he did in game one and it can't be undone. Personally, I can only go by what Pop does, and he's made Hill the backup point guard on this team.
Untouchables would probably be the big 3, everyone else is not secured lol.
I hope they can get rid of either hill, splitter, or jefferson.
Edit: I don't hate Splitter, but I don't think Pop will ever use him to his potential. Hill is just an overrated role player. Much rather have Gary Neal at this point. Don't need to explain Jefferson.
We cannot discuss this only from the perspective of the game alone, not even from how much of this or that contract a player has left.
We also have to consider the importance of a player to a franchise in terms of advertising, selling of merchandise, etc. Rarely today if at all, a team makes a decision on a player only on game value. For this reason I think both Duncan and Manu would be back next season while everyone else could stay or go depending on other factors.
I know this is a broad picture but this is pretty much what professional sports have become in the last few decades.
DPG is just being emotional right now.
Untouchable:
Tim
Tony
Manu
Won't be moved: Splitter, Neal, Bonner, RJ
Could see them moving: Hill, Blair, Anderson
and lol at John B for making a George Hill - Roddy comparison
Hard to say about untouchables. Contracts are signed for a lot of people, and Holt might decide to dump the team before Duncan retires so he can get some return, maybe not.
Either way, since the Spurs didn't make any major moves in the off season or before the trade deadline, and since their regular season record is so good, they might have the excuse to not spend more money and just develop who they have, then wait for a mid season deal to pop up and unload a couple of guys for a good veteran big man who's wanting to retire in the next two or three years.
Per Pop, Bonner is untouchable. It shocks me that he's been here for half a decade already.
LOL chumpdumper is on the way
im open to any of them being trade if its a good deal for the spurs i hope they make the deal
And a good basketball discussion devolving into inane one upsamanship follows with him.LOL chumpdumper is on the way
My questions are questions and you are the one being argumentative because you want to put all your eggs in a one game basket. I was asking questions that were directly related to the conversation we were having. The fact you take it personal is on you.
Not only did I refute you with much more evidence (i.e. every other game since Hill has been here where Pop didn't make him the primary point guard vs the one game you are clinging too), I also didn't make the argument you are trying to frame. I clearly said Pop doesn't see Hill as the starting PG, especially enough to trade TP away. You seem to be clinging to the fact he his the back up point guard which is irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing alarming about Pop seeing Hill as a back up PG. He is fine for that role. Being a back up point guard, especially when you have Manu on the team, doesn't mean anything for being a starting PG. That would be like saying Pop views Manu as a starting PG since he lets him handle the ball when TP is there.
Sure you can use that one game and blow it up to some monumental thing to try and help your argument, I just disagree and gave you my reasons why.
There has been plenty of games where Manu was out and Hill wasn't given the reigns. That is my argument and it refutes your position.
Name the playoff games this season that Manu missed where Pop didn't play Hill as the point guard. Yeah, thanks.
Not only did I refute you with much more evidence (i.e. every other game since Hill has been here where Pop didn't make him the primary point guard vs the one game you are clinging too), I also didn't make the argument you are trying to frame. I clearly said Pop doesn't see Hill as the starting PG, especially enough to trade TP away. You seem to be clinging to the fact he his the back up point guard which is irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing alarming about Pop seeing Hill as a back up PG. He is fine for that role. Being a back up point guard, especially when you have Manu on the team, doesn't mean anything for being a starting PG. That would be like saying Pop views Manu as a starting PG since he lets him handle the ball when TP is there.
Sure you can use that one game and blow it up to some monumental thing to try and help your argument, I just disagree and gave you my reasons why.
There has been plenty of games where Manu was out and Hill wasn't given the reigns. That is my argument and it refutes your position.
Name the backup point guard for the Spurs since George Hill was drafted. Yeah, thanks.
Name the guy Pop has called his favorite player since he was drafted. Yeah, thanks.
Parker's not untouchable.
1)
2) Why does this one playoff game outweigh every other game? Yeah, thanks.
3) Why would you draft/get another PG for a back up role that is already filled by Hill. Yeah, thanks. Do you not read the arguments? You are moving the goal post again. BTW, who is that Chris Quinn guy?
4) Pop coddles Hill. If you think Hill is his favorite player, you must also believe that "it's not fair for the team to play Tiago" since Pop said that as well. You can't pick and choose.
So please read the argument and refute my points before you continue to just repeat the same stuff. K, thanks.
For some strangereason I always got the impression that Hill (even being more of a 2 guard) was Pop's choice at backup PG...so why would that mean the Spurs haven't had a backup point guard for his career. Furthermore, if Pop would be willing to get rid of Tony because of Hill being able to replace him the point guard position, wouldn't that go even further in saying that Hill has been the backup PG? Or were you saying the Spurs haven't had a backup backup PG for Hill's entire (3 season) career?
Wait, what? You talking about this season? IIRC, Tony and Hill started together in game 1, and Hill was in there to replace an injured Ginobili. Was there a press release somewhere that I missed stating that Hill was the "PG" in that game, or was I the only one blind enough to not notice that Tony came off the bench? Nope...not blind. He did start, and was the PG.Parker was the starting point guard for 82 regular season games and Pop suddenly made Hill the starting point guard for game 1. I don't know how that can be classified as anything other than drastic, and I don't know how anyone that's followed Pop's puzzling lineup decisions over the last five years could fail to see that as the remotest bit disturbing.
He's saying in that one game that with both Hill & TP starting that Pop made Hill the primary ball handler. Furthermore he's saying because of that one game that Pop sees Hill as a starting caliber PG and that is the reason TP is not untouchable.
I hadn't read the rest of yalls back-and-forth when I posted that...so I figured out what he was trying to say, but still disagree.
Tony and George always switch off on who's handling the ball when they're on the floor together. I didn't really notice an obvious difference in Hill running the offense that much more than Tony in that game, and since I can't exactly check the tape right now, I'd say just in looking at the number that Tony ended up having the ball in his hands more.
I actually think that Tony is one of the most untouchable players (regardless of how he's played in this series) on the Spurs roster. His contract is one of the best in the NBA and is more than likely something the Spurs would like to hold onto.
Last edited by Bito Corleone; 04-25-2011 at 12:03 AM.
Spurs once again I think would stay pat and being another year older. Honestly Spurs almost never make moves other then getting lucky with the ping pong balls. I really think that the Door shuts for a very long time after this season unless the FO finally decided that they need big changes. Unfortunately Spurs are just so old now that it will be hard to move anyone and get anything in return.
As great a player as he is and for the Spurs, TP would probably be the only player Spurs could use to get something in value that could make a difference. Again, I hate to see any of the Big 3 go and wish they would all play out their career here, but based on the current roster it's the only way that I see spurs could get a difference maker in return because there are allot of teams that would love to have a player of Parker's talent, and pedigree.
Spurs just don't really have anything else to give to get.
I wouldn't bet on it. Pop will be down on his hands and knees.
good point.
We'll see what happens this year.
Neal is pretty overrated too
hill,rj, blair for bosh
QUESTION
Only Duncan and Ginobili are untouchable. Parker's fairly close. The other five I expect to return: Jefferson, Bonner, Hill, Neal and Splitter. That leaves McDyess' partially guaranteed contract, Blair and Anderson. AKA, what should be three fourths of their trade bait to land a legit second big (1st round pick being the other fourth).
I'm not necessarily expecting those players to be traded. But I wouldn't be shocked if they are, so long as it's in return for a legit second big. Short of that, I expect McDyess to retire and the other ten players on guaranteed contracts to return. Obviously, they'll need a fifth big and a third point. One they should be able to add via the draft, the other via free agency. And if that is in fact the route they choose to go, then we'll know they've given up hope of competing for a final championship in the Duncan era.
Unless your talking about a bottom feeder that wants to clear cap space, that's not much of a package. Like you stated McDyess might just retire and a 1st Round Spurs pick would basically be a high 2nd Rounder after a ''good deal for SA''.
For example, Bulls turned down dealing Asik (4th post player) for Courtney Lee, who would be starting right now. For the Spurs to get anyone legit that could make them a le contender they'd have to atleast include Hill in the deal. You'd be gutting your bench for a better starter but given the Spurs age is that really a smart move?
As most in this thread have correctly guessed - Spurs would have to break up the Big3 to remain/increase their chance of being le contenders. There has been and continues to be a large influx of great Point Guards in the NBA recently. And included in this draft will be 3 more - Irving, Walker & Knight. So how high is Parker's value at the moment?
Which Eastern Conference teams need PG help
- Knicks: But no one to offer in return
- Heat: But they need size more than SA
- Magic: Gorat would have been the IDEAL deal made with the Magic. Now it's Bass?
A team like the Pacers would be perfect to deal with if your the Spurs. They need a franchise face and have alot of size and pieces to deal
-
The question is "do you think Pop could make Hill a STARTING point guard?"
I think it would be terrible for BOTH the team and George...
+ As weird as it is, Pop doesn't seem so mad about TP's production and as disapointing he has be in the PO, he's a "cheap" elite PG and the spurs would be stupid to get rid of him...
BTW, I read everywhere that Conley OUTPLAYED Tony in this series, that he lokks like TP ... blablabla
1st it's not Conley by himself, it's more Memphis collective D taht limited Tony, then if TP had Conley's production, he would still be disapointing...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions