Point Guard shuffle

[reignfire]

exum > george hill right now.

[GMF]

I don't know why you'd give up Ty Lawson level value and only get George Hill back. Lawson>Hill.

Okay I'm putting George Hill in my "overrated trade value" thread. You really giving two firsts and Burke for him?

Cut out the Pacers, take a better point in Lawson, and keep the GSW pick.

Anyone care to explain?

http://bkref.com/tiny/wGKRY

I don't see anything Lawson is better at outside purely assists. Like at all, and he's certainly a worse defender, and more expensive.

And he's been one of our team leaders whose also a hometown guy. Adding a first is too much, but I wouldn't trade him straight up for Lawson.

Kind of funny that Hill went from people saying he had negative value to this though. I guess Indy fans telling everyone we're happy with him over and over finally sunk in.

I think it's more two years ago he had a down year and didn't seem to fit in well with Stephenson. Last season he played much better despite injuries.

[cammac]

George Hill is not worth a lottery pick + another pick + Trey Burke... You can get a steady PG for 2 years for much less...

Feel free to offer suggestions to make the trade more balanced if you think it has some merit.

I was going to say that if you are looking for a point guard I think you could deal straight up with TO. I honestly think that package would interest MU for Kyle Lowry. Who quite frankly is better than Hill and on relatively cheap deal with 3 years left. We might even put in this years 20th

Kyle Lowry, 2015 20th pick
For 2015 12th pick, Trey Burke and GS future 1st

It legitimately helps both teams.

Exactly how does it help Toronto?
Terrible trade Lowry is better than any of the PGs.....Burke is a POS...... GS 1st is 25 plus, giving up 20th Masai isn't that stupid.

[winter_mute_13]

Way way too much for an expiring role player in Hill. I think the Jazz would much rather take on Lawson

Hill isn't expiring. He's locked into a great value deal for another 2 seasons. Post the cap explosion, he'll look like one of the best non-rookie deal bargains in the league.

Although... I'm not sure why Indiana would do that... Are they really looking to trade Hill?

No, no we're not.

[Texas Chuck]

exum > george hill right now.

I'm assuming you are talking about trade value because on the court its really not close at this point. Hill is clearly superior.

I think their trade value is probably pretty close. Maybe a slight edge to Exum?

[Texas Chuck]

Kind of funny that Hill went from people saying he had negative value to this though. I guess Indy fans telling everyone we're happy with him over and over finally sunk in.

Well, I never thought he had negative value, but yeah I do think the fact that pretty much every Pacers fan was on board with George Hill at PG should have told us all something important. It clearly wasn't a case of Pacers fans overvaluing their own guy either(especially since our Pacers may well be our most objective fan base when it comes to their own guys).

I know I'd be delighted to have had George Hill as the Mavs PG instead of the trainwreck of guys we have run out there since Kidd left(well I didn't totally hate Calderon, but when he's been the best option over that long.....)

[winter_mute_13]

Here's the thing, this trade just screams rebuild for the Pacers. How high might the #11, Lawson and the GSW pick get you if you decide to then trade up? You'll never get anything remotely better in terms of rebuild assets.

I get that Hill fits what you do, but, frankly, it's over for that team. Hibbert, West, and probably Hill won't be Pacers the next time that team is a serious contender. They can grind out another year while those players get older and reduce or even expire any value they had. Or they can move them this summer.

Indiana has to rebuild, the question is do they wait another year when it will be a lot harder?

I actually agree that the Pacers are in the midst of a rebuild right now (or reload, or mini-rebuild, or whatever people want to call it). But I disagree that Hill doesn't fit the timeline. West is the one who doesn't fit the timeline, that is clear. And Hibbert doesn't fit the future vision of the team, which is too bad because he's a fine player otherwise.

What do the Pacers have? Superstar in place, locked into a long contract? Check. A competent starting guard, either at PG or SG? Check. A ton of cap space opening up in 2016? Check.

We could have a rebuilt team as early as 2016. And this is not a case of hoping one of those rare superstars would deign to sign with the Pacers. With our own #1 guy in place, we're only out there recruiting for #2 and #3 (i.e. David West level players). With George Hill and our developing rookies to fill out the squad, we could have a team equal to what we've had the last few years. We're not heading into a multiyear Philly style rebuild, that's for sure.

[lars_rosenberg]

The Pacers have a good roster, this season was plagued by injuries.
Next year with PG healthy they will be a playoff team and probably top 4 in the east.
To contend you need something more though.

[NOLA Glasses]

If the Nuggets would trade Lawson for Burke and the 12th, why not just cut Indiana out and get Lawson on the Jazz?

[Scoot McGroot]

Well, I never thought he had negative value, but yeah I do think the fact that pretty much every Pacers fan was on board with George Hill at PG should have told us all something important. It clearly wasn't a case of Pacers fans overvaluing their own guy either(especially since our Pacers may well be our most objective fan base when it comes to their own guys).

Well, you're giving me the vapors right about now...honored!


But otherwise, I think it all boiled down to that ECF against the Heat two years ago, and the fact that we knew that George Hill had suffered a VERY serious concussion at the end of the previous series. Hill looked average against the Heat, but we knew that he was really trying hard and playing VERY injured, while no one else had watched the previous series at all.

Ultimately, the fact is this. Despite a very bad, injury plagued year for the Pacers this year, we were in the playoff hunt until the last day. This year, we were 26-17 with George Hill playing. We were 12-27 without George Hill. It's not unreasonable to think that if George Hill was healthy at the beginning of the year that we could've won 47+ games this year. All without Paul George. That's the reason Pacers fans don't desire a full rebuild. We see a possibly healthy George Hill with a healthy Paul George, and add in a veteran in David West, solid role players and bench players across the board, AND adding a lotto pick this year, and see that there's a chance for one last run with this full group. Or, at worst, we go into free agency in 2016 with MASSIVE cap space, PG, George Hill, Solo Hill, CJ Miles, #11 pick, and Damo Rudez (a nice little role player, barely paid more than the minimum salary), and see the ability to add a top notch piece, or a TON of great fitting pieces around those guys and see a quick reload kind of possibility.

[R-DAWG]

Okay I'm putting George Hill in my "overrated trade value" thread. You really giving two firsts and Burke for him?

Cut out the Pacers, take a better point in Lawson, and keep the GSW pick.

If I'm the Pacers i'd offer #11 for Lawson. It's probaly the highest pick DEN will get in this years draft for Ty. For Indy they shift Hill to SG.

[winter_mute_13]

If I'm the Pacers i'd offer #11 for Lawson. It's probaly the highest pick DEN will get in this years draft for Ty. For Indy they shift Hill to SG.

Maybe. I'm not horribly opposed to that. But I'd like to see what other options we have, including just drafting and developing a guy.

Main concern probably is that a Lawson-Hill backcourt is too small, with both guys being undersized for their position.

[jbk1234]

I don't know why you'd give up Ty Lawson level value and only get George Hill back. Lawson>Hill.

Okay I'm putting George Hill in my "overrated trade value" thread. You really giving two firsts and Burke for him?

Cut out the Pacers, take a better point in Lawson, and keep the GSW pick.

Anyone care to explain?

http://bkref.com/tiny/wGKRY

I don't see anything Lawson is better at outside purely assists. Like at all, and he's certainly a worse defender, and more expensive.

That's like saying SG A is only better at shooting. The Jazz have a top front court defense already. They need to be able to put the ball in the hoop.

[bondom34]

I don't know why you'd give up Ty Lawson level value and only get George Hill back. Lawson>Hill.

Okay I'm putting George Hill in my "overrated trade value" thread. You really giving two firsts and Burke for him?

Cut out the Pacers, take a better point in Lawson, and keep the GSW pick.

Anyone care to explain?

http://bkref.com/tiny/wGKRY

I don't see anything Lawson is better at outside purely assists. Like at all, and he's certainly a worse defender, and more expensive.

That's like saying SG A is only better at shooting. The Jazz have a top front court defense already. They need to be able to put the ball in the hoop.

Assists =/= passing ability. And given off court issues, contracts, defense (half the game), shooting, rebounding, lower TOs, and on, I'd take Hill before Lawson and rather easily.

[jbk1234]

Anyone care to explain?

http://bkref.com/tiny/wGKRY

I don't see anything Lawson is better at outside purely assists. Like at all, and he's certainly a worse defender, and more expensive.

That's like saying SG A is only better at shooting. The Jazz have a top front court defense already. They need to be able to put the ball in the hoop.

Assists =/= passing ability. And given off court issues, contracts, defense (half the game), shooting, rebounding, lower TOs, and on, I'd take Hill before Lawson and rather easily.

Because you are a fan of a team with Durant, Westbrook, Kanter and other players capable of putting the ball in the hoop. Teams like Utah and the Hornets don't have the luxury of trading for the better two-way player who isn't a significant plus on the offensive end. It was only a year ago that people were saying the Pacers would never get past the Heat unless they had better PG play because it was too hard for them score.

[bondom34]

That's like saying SG A is only better at shooting. The Jazz have a top front court defense already. They need to be able to put the ball in the hoop.

Assists =/= passing ability. And given off court issues, contracts, defense (half the game), shooting, rebounding, lower TOs, and on, I'd take Hill before Lawson and rather easily.

Because you are a fan of a team with Durant, Westbrook, Kanter and other players capable of putting the ball in the hoop. Teams like Utah and the Hornets don't have the luxury of trading for the better two-way player who isn't a significant plus on the offensive end. It was only a year ago that people were saying the Pacers would never get past the Heat unless they had better PG play because it was too hard for them score.

And again, people were wrong. I'd look to any Pacers fan and ask if they're happy with the PG play, I'd bet they are. Its not b/c of who I'm a fan of, a 2 way player is more valuable than a 1 way player. Also, contract is better, off court issues are better, and he was by far a better player this season.

Edit:

And here, to add RPM, Hill was even better offensively:

http://espn.go.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/position/1

[jbk1234]

Assists =/= passing ability. And given off court issues, contracts, defense (half the game), shooting, rebounding, lower TOs, and on, I'd take Hill before Lawson and rather easily.

Because you are a fan of a team with Durant, Westbrook, Kanter and other players capable of putting the ball in the hoop. Teams like Utah and the Hornets don't have the luxury of trading for the better two-way player who isn't a significant plus on the offensive end. It was only a year ago that people were saying the Pacers would never get past the Heat unless they had better PG play because it was too hard for them score.

And again, people were wrong. I'd look to any Pacers fan and ask if they're happy with the PG play, I'd bet they are. Its not b/c of who I'm a fan of, a 2 way player is more valuable than a 1 way player. Also, contract is better, off court issues are better, and he was by far a better player this season.

What type of off-the-court issues did Lawson have when the Nuggets were winning and had a good coach? What type of off-the-court issues is Lawson going to have in Salt Lake? First off, it is a stretch call a player as limited as Hill offensively a two-way player. You are simply putting more value on defense than offense. In a vacuum, two-way players are more valuable. But rosters aren't created in a vacuum. Teams have specific needs and sometimes an offensive or defensive player provides more value in a specific setting. I could see the Jazz increase their wins by 3-5 games if they trade for Hill. I could see them add 10-15 wins with Lawson.

[bondom34]

Because you are a fan of a team with Durant, Westbrook, Kanter and other players capable of putting the ball in the hoop. Teams like Utah and the Hornets don't have the luxury of trading for the better two-way player who isn't a significant plus on the offensive end. It was only a year ago that people were saying the Pacers would never get past the Heat unless they had better PG play because it was too hard for them score.

And again, people were wrong. I'd look to any Pacers fan and ask if they're happy with the PG play, I'd bet they are. Its not b/c of who I'm a fan of, a 2 way player is more valuable than a 1 way player. Also, contract is better, off court issues are better, and he was by far a better player this season.

What type of off-the-court issues did Lawson have when the Nuggets were winning and had a good coach? What type of off-the-court issues is Lawson going to have in Salt Lake? First off, it is a stretch call a player as limited as Hill offensively a two-way player. You are simply putting more value on defense than offense. In a vacuum, two-way players are more valuable. But rosters aren't created in a vacuum. Teams have specific needs and sometimes an offensive or defensive player provides more value in a specific setting. I could see the Jazz increase their wins by 3-5 games if they trade for Hill. I could see them add 10-15 wins with Lawson.

I'm not buying DUI is at all related to being on a bad team, and Hill isn't limited offensively. See RPM, shooting, etc. If I covered names up and posted stats, I'd bet almost everyone would take Hill handedly.

[winter_mute_13]

Because you are a fan of a team with Durant, Westbrook, Kanter and other players capable of putting the ball in the hoop. Teams like Utah and the Hornets don't have the luxury of trading for the better two-way player who isn't a significant plus on the offensive end. It was only a year ago that people were saying the Pacers would never get past the Heat unless they had better PG play because it was too hard for them score.

They were wrong. Maybe we do need better PG play, but it's far down the list of issues to me.

Main reason IMO is that we're a post heavy team in an era where post play is the easiest thing to take away. Hibbert had some early success against the Heat, but later on the Heat were able to neutralize him with smaller guys like Haslem. And just look at the Grizzlies this year. Their post guys are better than our post guys, but when GS swarmed the paint, they were neutralized too. And that goes into the 2nd reason. Like the Grizzlies, we just didn't have enough outside shooting. I don't know if you've noticed, but the 3 has become a huge weapon. We had a couple of good shooters, but the bench especially was lacking and we didn't have (decent) stretch bigs at all. Those IMO were the main reasons we were bad at scoring.

[babyjax13]

Not all that interested in Hill. He's an OK starter, as in maybe a top 20 point guard? And that just isn't something you give up a lotto pick for. Trey and a future pick? Sure. The 12th pick? No thanks.