Paul George grew taller during this summer

[iLL GM]

I just saw Paul George standing next to 7'2" Roy Hibbert. Roy had him by no more than 2".

Paul George is unofficially a seven-footer.

[rpa]

My man, singlepurposeac. Long time no see. Do you want to see a place that makes extraordinary claims about their young players? You might be familiar with it, being a fan of the team and all.

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=29

Let's not pretend like Pacer fans are the only people that get too hyped up about that their younger players.

One group has a former ROY and a top 3-4 rookie from last year. The other team has, uhm, a bunch of late lottery picks.

Hyping up high lottery picks is understandable. Hyping up picks from the range that typically spits out fringe starters and bench players isn't as understandable.

Every year the Pacers draft at the end of the lottery and every year we have to hear about another "epic draft steal" by the Pacers. It's getting really old. Other than Granger the Pacers have been drafting bums for the past decade.

PS -- Has the Paul George hype reached Brandon Rush level yet? I'd say "no", but by mid-year there's a definite chance.

[WhatsaTDot]

I'm sure its been asked already but what has AR accomplished again?

[WhatsaTDot]

Shoulda waited to read page 2 before my previous post.

Continue.

[iLL GM]

One group has a former ROY

...who just had an atrocious sophomore season in which he threw up enough bricks to build several luxurious houses, and produced more turnovers than every bakery east of the Mississippi, combined.

and a top 3-4 rookie from last year. The other team has, uhm, a bunch of late lottery picks.

...an overweight, 43% shooting headcase. Sure, if Cousins lives up to his potential, he could be an All-Star... and if he lives down to his potential, he could be a convict.

I'd put the two scenarios at even odds.

Hyping up high lottery picks is understandable. Hyping up picks from the range that typically spits out fringe starters and bench players isn't as understandable.

Hyping up a team that, despite being built around mid-to-late lottery picks, still gave the NBA's #1 overall seed Chicago Bulls a competitive playoff series is understandable.

Hyping up a team that just finished with an embarrassing 24-58 record, despite several high lottery picks, isn't as understandable. Break the mighty 25-win barrier ( ) and then maybe you can talk a little trash.

Every year the Pacers draft at the end of the lottery and every year we have to hear about another "epic draft steal" by the Pacers. It's getting really old. Other than Granger the Pacers have been drafting bums for the past decade.

The Pacers' first-round selections (including draft-day trades) since Donnie Walsh walked away and Larry Bird and David Morway (2009) took over:

2008
#13. Brandon Rush (via trade with Blazers)
#17. Roy Hibbert (via trade with Raptors)

2009
#13. Tyler Hansbrough

2010
#10. Paul George

2011
#15. George Hill (via trade with Spurs)

That looks like a pretty good track record to me. Not a terrible pick amongst the bunch, with Roy being a triple (a skilled, 7'2" center at #17), Hansbrough being a double (great backup PF, who can still blossom into a quality starter), Rush being a single (great three-point shooter and elite defender). The jury's still out on Paul George, obviously, but his potential is "home run."

I wont rate George Hill, but everyone knows how crucial he was to the Spurs. He was a great acquistion for a #15 pick in a weak draft.

PS -- Has the Paul George hype reached Brandon Rush level yet? I'd say "no", but by mid-year there's a definite chance.

I don't recall Brandon Rush ever receiving much hype, really. There was a period during the final month of his rookie season where he scored in double-figures in 12 of the final 13 games, including five 20+ point games, but beyond that he's always been viewed as a role player.

[GodDamnRobin]

The Spurs have a much better track record than you in GM'ing and drafting (especially the record you just cited, which is a list of players who have proven nothing yet, and haven't been in the NBA long enough to be proven busts/overrated yet), so what does it say that they were willing to trade a solid role player, who is one of the coaches favourite players, for a middling draft pick? It says either [guys who are smarter than you] think the draft pick is really good, or that the guy they traded to you isn't that great in the first place. Either one bodes poorly for you.

[astrallite]

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Paul-George-5688/

So he was 6'7¾, and at 21 years old, he grew another inch? So that means he's almost 6'9 right?...

[GodDamnRobin]

At this rate, by 2013 the Pacers hype machine will have him at 7-1

[WhatsaTDot]

And at this rate, you wont see January with this current username.

[iLL GM]

The Spurs have a much better track record than you in GM'ing and drafting (especially the record you just cited, which is a list of players who have proven nothing yet, and haven't been in the NBA long enough to be proven busts/overrated yet), so what does it say that they were willing to trade a solid role player, who is one of the coaches favourite players, for a middling draft pick? It says either [guys who are smarter than you] think the draft pick is really good, or that the guy they traded to you isn't that great in the first place. Either one bodes poorly for you.

The Spurs have an excellent track record when it comes to the draft. Who ever questioned that? With that said, they're not completely flawless. Ian Mahinmi, first-round draft pick, anyone?

Anyway, Kawhi Leonard may or may not be good, but Hill's a proven commodity, who's productive, efficient, and plays tough defense. That he could be had for the 15th pick in such a seemingly weak draft is a steal, regardless of how that pick turns out, just as trading a $1 lottery ticket for a brand new car would be a steal even if that lottery ticket turns out to be a big winner.

[GodDamnRobin]

So the Spurs are morons, is your contention?

[jowglenn]

So the Spurs are morons, is your contention?

I just love your reasoning here. And by that, I mean your complete lack of reasoning.

The Spurs have a much better track record than you in GM'ing and drafting (especially the record you just cited, which is a list of players who have proven nothing yet, and haven't been in the NBA long enough to be proven busts/overrated yet), so what does it say that they were willing to trade a solid role player, who is one of the coaches favourite players, for a middling draft pick? It says either [guys who are smarter than you] think the draft pick is really good, or that the guy they traded to you isn't that great in the first place. Either one bodes poorly for you.

I like how we are idiots merely by making a trade with the Spurs. Like, automatically we are the "losers" of the trade. You do know that trades can be mutually beneficial, right? Like, we give up a guy we don't need (unproven rookie with potential) for a guy we do need (proven young guy who fits for us at PG/SG, good d, can put points up at the end of game).

Meanwhile, the Spurs give up a vet young guy who is in a crowded all-star backcourt (Parker/Ginoblii) because they've got other decent backup options. What they didn't have was any freak athlete rebounding SF - they had old-ass richard jefferson, ferchrissake. So they do that trade.

I mean your logic is absurd. It goes: The Spurs make better decisions than the Pacers, so you either gave up an amazing draft pick or got back a guy who isn't that great. This is (Please Use More Appropriate Word).

It was a mutually benefiical tarde, a win-win if you will. Both teams had an asset that they didn't really need, and a gap that they needed to fill. We made a trade. In fact, if you go back to the news of the trade, most pundits agreed that it was a very good trade for both teams.

Neither team was a moron there, neither team got the wool pulled over their eyes. They both got what they wanted.

Has your mom not finished heating up the pizza rolls yet?

[GodDamnRobin]

It's not that you're the "losers", it's that the logic of your statement is that you completely raped the Spurs. I find this sort of optimism to be brash to put it lightly.

[jowglenn]

It's not that you're the "losers", it's that the logic of your statement is that you completely raped the Spurs. I find this sort of optimism to be brash to put it lightly.

Whoa, who said we raped the Spurs in that deal? Nobody. Certainly not me. Someone else said it was like trading a lotto ticket for a car, that it was good for the pacers, but really it was just that for OUR needs, having a proven guy who can come in and help us compete immediately is more important than an unproven rookie.

[s_g_b]

As a pacer fan I hate the trade for Hill.

[iLL GM]

So the Spurs are morons, is your contention?

The Spurs had reasonable motivation for trading Hill, so no, they're not morons for making the deal. They were likely to lose him to free agency next summer, and they already had Parker on board, so they shipped him off for a nice small forward prospect, Kawhi Leonard, who was pegged as a top-10 pick.

Good move for the Spurs. Great move for the Pacers.

[peja drobnjak]

leonard was a steal, spurs won that trade in a vacuum

but george hill would've helped them beat memphis probably. dunno why they didn't just do it in the offseason (asking legitimately here)

[jowglenn]

leonard was a steal, spurs won that trade in a vacuum

but george hill would've helped them beat memphis probably. dunno why they didn't just do it in the offseason (asking legitimately here)

You seem to be confused. The trade WAS in the offseason. George Hill played against the Grizzlies in that playoff series. The trade was a draft-night trade.

[spacemonkey]

Paul George, the next Anthony Randolph?

I'd say he's like Peja Stojacavic but with worse shooting and better defense.

So basically: not like Peja at all.