Delicious, delicious irony here.
Hill is an undersized sg forced to play in the Spurs system too much at pg.
Indiana will use him more as a sg and watch him become a much better player.
Also not playing in the shadows of parker and manu as a backup will help his confidence.
Hill will have a better year in Indiana then he would have on the Spurs and have a better year than Leonard.
Rotoworld
Pacers guard George Hill's could potentially start at SG or backup both guard positions next season, enabling him to coexist with starting PG Darren Collison.
Larry Bird said the Pacers have been trying to acquire Hill "the last couple of years," and felt he was better than any player available with the No. 15 pick. Indiana doesn't have a head coach yet, and roles are purely speculative (he could even fight for the starting PG job), but Hill's combo-guard versatility bodes well for his value.
I agree with most of this, which is why this looks like a really good trade for both teams. If the post above is accurate and the Pacers try to make him a combo guard then George will be about as good as he was as a Spur for the rest of his career.
As for having a better year than Leonard, that's not really a bold take considering he'll be starting in his fourth year. If he DOESN'T have a better year than Leonard then the Pacers got screwed.
This is why I thought trading manu for a big made the most sense and then moving Hill to starting sg.
Hill, Neal and Anderson could cover the sg slot with Manu landing the Spurs a better big (borderline star or good young player with good upside)than they would have been able to get otherwise. The frontline is the Spurs biggest weakness.
Now it's most likely the spurs get a low end backup or over the hill type of player on the frontline and still end up not being good enough overall on the frontline.
Yeah, but you aren't getting a borderline star big for Manu. That's where the argument falls apart, because bigs are hugely overpaid and have more value as an asset.
I'm overstating the folowing a bit, but let's look at it from the Spurs' needs standpoint: For a good player, Hill wasn't a great individual defender, was a terrible team defender, didn't always show up, and was the worst shooter of all the swings on the team. Add to the fact that he failed at backup point and he was the obvious one to go.
Rearrange the names in your statement:
Manu, Neal and Anderson could cover the sg slot with Hill landing the Spurs a better small forward (borderline star or good young player with good upside) than they would have been able to get otherwise. The frontline then becomes the Spurs' biggest weakness.
They still have Dice's contract and pieces with some value. Unfortunately the weak pieces of the front line (Bonner and RJ) are the ones that are going to be the hardest to trade, and Manu wouldn't have fixed that for what you lose when he leaves town.
You're overvaluing Manu as a trade chip because you're a fan, and you're undervaluing his actual value to the Spurs because you have your GM hat on.
This guy got it EXACTLY right. No offense to Hill. He was an awfully good player, but I believe he was overrated somewhat by Pop, many fans and NBA analysts. I've said many times that it was inexcusable that he was never able to master running a simple pick-n-roll. I also believe Pop hindered his development by commanding that he play more "selfishly" and seek his own offense first, rather than learning how to run the team and involving his teammates.
There was no doubt that he was a good defender, but he was far from being a great one nor was he a lockdown perimeter defender. However, he looked much better defensively because he was on a team of very poor-to-average perimeter defenders. This is sort of like being the "smartest dumb kid in a class of dummies". Furthermore, as an undersized SG, Hill should never have been saddled with the challenge of trying to slow down the likes of LeBron James, Kobe Bryant and Rudy Gay.
Pop did the kid a disservice by not always putting him in situations where he could succeed. Instead, Pop often put the kid in situations where expectations were too great. Perhaps that may have contributed to why he seemingly "hit his ceiling".
He will be missed, but I agree that his contributions can be replicated.
When will Pop stop forcing players to play out of position? Same with Roger Mason, who also wasn't a PG. I really hope Leonard doesn't try to get utilized more as a 4 as oppose to a 3 which is his true position.
That's why I hope we acquire another true big. Not another Blair or Bonner.
After all these years people are still arguing with rascal?
He has the potential to be useful against teams in our conference when they use players like Odom, Marion, Arthur, and Durant at the 4. Those matchups have caused great problems for the Spurs. Leonard may very well be our best bet to deal with those lineups.
That's a very fair point, and I understand if we play small ball Leonard can have some potential. I just don't want to see a stat this season where he's played more minutes at the 4 than the 3. Situational minutes as a PF is OK, but I don't want Pop to go overboard with playing players out of position.
The combo guard debate is a whole lot different than the combo forward debate, obviously, but so many of us try to treat it the same.
Combo forwards bring a different dynamic to an offense where in a tweener 3 playing the 4 spot often requires the opponent to guard the perimeter. Having a guy who's 6'9" or taller who can shoot from 3 pt range AND be able to defend opposing PFs is something few teams possess (Channing Frye is a good example). Leonard won't be a tweener as he doesn't have the range nor do he possess the post moves. But, his defensive ability and rebounding desire make him a GREAT candidate for defending smaller PFs. I think Pop and the FO will combine him w/ Bonner and have Bonner run the pick and pop.
The difference between a SG and a PG are NIGHT and DAY. Many teams make the mistake of trying to combine the two but very few players can actually do both really well. Stephen Curry (GS Warriors) is a SG that is being made to play the point because of Monta Ellis. He did it some in college so you would think he'd have the skills - he doesn't. The Warriors drafted Charles Jenkins in the 2nd round.
Same w/ Ben Gordon - that's why the Pistons drafted Brandon Knight. Same with Russell Westbrook.
There are a LOT of teams coming to the realization that there is just no subs ute for a true PG - someone who can run the floor, recognize even the smallest of nuances in the defensive schemes they see, can drive/penetrate to the basket and most important, can make the RIGHT decisions. PGs are usually the smartest players on the team.
SGs often are relied upon to score - not think. They rely on instinct and shooting talent. Completely different skillsets...
So you agree with the fact that Leonard likely wont have the same impact Hill couldve had next yr? The same year that will likely be the Spurs last stand?? So why trade your best young asset for a player that wont contribute much next season, isnt that the opposite of the norm?? That's like if the Mavs traded Harris for a lottery pick instead of for Kidd, it makes no sense if youre in win-now mode.
No, trading Parker wouldve made more sense. We've seen that the team does just fine with Hill-Manu starting in the backcourt. A Parker-Hill lineup hasnt shown the same success. Parker just like Manu couldve netted us a solid player in the frontcourt.
All yall s saying his contributions will easily be replicated are completely re ed. His outside shooting can be replicated by Neal and Anderson but thats where it ends. George Hill was 3rd in the team when it came to FTAs, Neal and Anderson have shown nothing to suggest they are anywhere near the slashers Hill is. They also cant play back-up point, even if you thought Hill was a disaster running the point (which I dont agree with) both Neal and Anderson would be ten times worse. Defensively, even if Hill wasnt a lockdown defender he was still the best perimeter defender on the team. Neal and Anderson are mediocre are at best. Even combined, Anderson and Neal dont bring to the table what Hill was able to bring. Their skillsets are a bit redundant if you ask me tbh, theyre both shooters.
And if you thought Hill was a functional backup point guard, then you clearly were not watching closely enough.
I watched closely enough to notice that Hill was a functional enough PG for the Spurs to not miss a beat when Parker was injured and Hill was the starting PG. Look up their record and his numbers when he started in place of Tony then comeback and tell me he wasnt a functional PG.
I think 99% of spurstalk was on vacation during all those stretches when Parker was hampered with various nagging injuries and Hill started cuz it seems we're the only ones who remember.
Not dogging on Hill but during that same stretch Manu was playing some of the best basketball of his entire career. He was simply amazing during that run of games and was the primary ball handler most of the time as well. I hate to see George go but he is definitely not a starting PG and nowhere near the caliber player of Tony Parker.
That wasnt by coincedence. Manu even this past season raised his play and numbers when he played alongside Hill. Its pretty obvious that Hill complimented Manu's game better than Tony. Noone has ever said Hill>Parker or even Hill=Parker btw, simply that the Spurs as a team really dont miss a beat when Hill starts in place of Parker.
Hypothesis #1: 99% of Spurstalk was on vacationI think 99% of spurstalk was on vacation during all those stretches when Parker was hampered with various nagging injuries and Hill started cuz it seems we're the only ones who remember.
Hypothesis #2: TJLastal and FKLA are blind
Occam's razor says you should consult an ophthalmologist asap.
No question that Manu plays his best basketball when he is the primary ball handler, which he is when Hill is on the court alongside him. Fact is Manu can't hold up for a whole season as it is and would without a doubt wear down a of a lot quicker if he was asked to take on those responsibilities and play like that game in and game out during the regular season.
On the other hand, Parker has the ability to win this team games virtually by himself even if Manu is having an off night or missing time due to injuries (which seem pretty likely from here on out) Something George doesn't have the ability to do because he is a far inferior player at the end of the day.
George was a fine backup PG to Tony, sure, because he really wasn't even running point when Manu was in the game alongside him but he is definitely not a starting PG in this league and turning over the reigns and making him play a position he doesn't even play would have been a disaster here. Especially with a team like the Spurs who rely so much on point guard play.
Amazing coincidence how that happened when Hill was running point, huh?
Occam's razor supports our theory not you & DesignatedT
Spurs would have been fine with signing a vet pg like Earl Watson to come in and help with the ball handling/point guard duties.
And with all the depth behind Manu (Neal, Green, Anderson) minutes would not have been a problem for Manu.
Try actually thinking for a change.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote