Reply With Quote
Why the would the Spurs help the Lakers anyway?
still not to late to tank season
Why the would the Spurs help the Lakers anyway?
bonner on the lakers does make loads of sense. if the spurs get jordan hill in return, i'm fine with that. although bonner will probably nail all his 3's in the playoffs against the spurs...
Hor heroic of Spurs fans to be willing to offer Bonner for Jordan Hill.
bonner is an excellent regular season player. and lakers need regular season wins.
No. Bonner is able to get some burn because of how the Spurs play and how Tim Duncan draws attention. He's not an excellent regular season player. He's a mediocre bench player and really turns to in the playoffs. There are a few excellent players in the league, Bonner isn't one of them.
when the magic were good, they basically modeled their team after the spurs. dwight in the middle with 3 point shooters that surrounded him and a score first PG. see rashard lewis and ryan anderson. dwight excelled in van gundy's system, it only makes sense that getting another 3 point shooting big would help out dwight. so getting a player that excelled in a near identical system makes sense. bonner's 3 point launching also fits with dantoni's shoot first, ask questions later system.
and excellent relative to bonner's potential, not compared to the rest of the league. bonner's 3 point shooting is very good in the regular season for burying teams and momentum shifts.
Well, Bonner's potential isn't very high, so calling his play excellent is like calling Tori Spelling an excellent actor, based on her potential.
Robert Horry and Brent Barry, tbh
>Implying Jordan Hill is some stud
1) Dantoni had no use for Hill in NY. He has even less use for him in LA where the team is as of now a slightly worse fit apparently for his system than when Hill was in NY.
2) Why are you scoffing Bonner over Hill (while ignoring the fact they would also get a guy like Patty as well)? Matt Bonner & Hill have about the same exact career PER. There per minute/advanced stats comparison?:
Bonner Per 36 minutes: 13 PPG, 6.7 REB, 1.4 AST, .8STL, .6BLK on 46% FG, 42%3PFG, 78% FT - Career PER 14.1
Hill Per 36 minutes: 13 PPG, 10.7 REB, 1 AST, .7STL, 1.6BLK on 49% FG, 0%3PFG, 67% FT - Career PER 14.6
Bonner Advanced: TS% 58%, 119 ORtg, 106 DRtg, Win Shares/48 of .141
Hill Advanced: TS% 52%, 107 ORtg, 106 DRtg, Win Shares/48 of .100
So by all accounts, despite what your bias or argument may be, Bonner for Hill is more than a fair trade with Bonner being the better, more impactful player overall. Jordan Hill has apparently turned into some mythological beast of a big man for some reason...The actual stats show that Bonner is a much better offensive player, that is much worse at rebounding/shotblocking than Hill - although he has a similar actual impact defensively. He's so far ahead of Jordan offensively though with regards to impact that it appears to make up for the lack of rebounding/shotblocking.
If you look at RAPM as well (widely regarded as a great advanced stat) the picture for Bonner over Hill is even better...
Again, no one is arguing Bonner or Mills is a star. No one is saying this is some blockbuster deal. But the fact is Hill is a mediocre player, like Bonner/Mills and this trade is just a minor deal that has legit reasons why it could be useful to both teams IMO. , I'm not even saying that on an open market today that Bonner would garner more interest than Hill.
Hill is not a good fit for Dantoni (this was proven when he was shipped out of NY). Bonner is not a good player, however, he has been consistently a positive when on the court for the regular season. Spurs fans problem with Bonner is that he chokes in the playoffs and that he was used too much in a role that was not fair to him. He is however undeniably a positive when on the court during long regular seasons. It's also hard to argue that he (Bonner) would not be a much better fit than Hill on the Lakers (same with Hill on the Spurs) which is why to me the trade makes sense.
I get if you don't like the deal, but to imply Hill is some stud compared to Bonner or that Patty (at this point, all things considered) is way worse than Delonte has no bearing in reality IMO and is purely personal opinion/bias. I would imagine quite a few Laker people would welcome Bonner into their rotation over Hill and I don't blame them. As a fourth big (vs a starter or 3rd big like with the Spurs), Bonner can be damn useful with his excellent 3 point shooting and decent defense.
Last edited by DPG21920; 12-12-2012 at 07:48 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
