RealGM

lakerRD wrote:I'd much rather have Hill than Redick

Because of defense, you might be right, but Reddick is much less of an injury risk.

Leor_77 wrote:

lakerRD wrote:I'd much rather have Hill than Redick

Because of defense, you might be right, but Reddick is much less of an injury risk.

Redick is a terrific shooter.
We can definitely use that.
But we can use Hill so much more.
Better defender.
Better passer .
Better leader.
Better ball player overall.
Would be a great influence in the youngsters.

dockingsched wrote:Get this deal done then finish it off by flipping Hill and/or Lopez to a contender at the deadline for expiring/asset

Wouldn't Hill and Lopez be expiring themselves?

I'm all for the signing considering the circumstances.. Much rather end up with a year of Hill than a year of Waiters (even though he showed some nice flashes)... Get you the modern Derek Fisher, jack of all trades PG...

Essentially we'll have swapped

Russel for Ball
Young for Hill
Movgov for Lopez

I'd be hoping for a 30-40 win season with big progression from Ingram, Randle, Nance and Zubac....

I want progression period. Moving forward to #17. Our team needs to grow and believe that the goal is achievable. The ring!

Ugh, I'm getting nervous that there hasn't been a deal yet. I have a feeling the nuggets are going to make a late play. If they can unload a contract they'd be able to offer something.

Gus McCrae wrote:

dockingsched wrote:Get this deal done then finish it off by flipping Hill and/or Lopez to a contender at the deadline for expiring/asset

Wouldn't Hill and Lopez be expiring themselves?

Yeah but they're good players able to help a contender. A team looking for a boost who has a trash player on an expiring should want to make that exchange.

Hill would be HUGE not only for leadership, but for mentoring Ball in general.

He would fit great as our starting 2 guard.

It's typically not a good thing for LA if the deal doesn't come out of nowhere. Hill seems like he'd get a longer deal somewhere. Could be another mention LA for leverage situation. One thing is for sure. We are not rushing things. I hope that's the plan and we're not being rejected by everyone.

Landsberger wrote:It's typically not a good thing for LA if the deal doesn't come out of nowhere. Hill seems like he'd get a longer deal somewhere. Could be another mention LA for leverage situation. One thing is for sure. We are not rushing things. I hope that's the plan and we're not being rejected by everyone.

Thats how it used to be with the old front office who was extremely tight lipped. Ever since Magic took over, almost every little detail about the Lakers is made public through Kevin Ding and Ramona Shelburn who are Jeanie's mouth pieces.

Strange choice to me. Thought we would go for a more traditional SG.

For 1 year, its no big deal I suppose.

Hill would be terrific even after one year.
This year, if we're lucky to get him, we should only sign him for one year in order to keep flexiblity for next year.
Then next year, I'd potentially think about signing him for more years after we've signed our max FAs.
He'd be a perfect 2 next to Lonzo for years to come

Honestly Hill is average. Does a lot of good things. But he's not young. He's also not great.

His salary can be an impediment to better talent. It'll be fine if we get can a pick or a salary dump for parking him to showcase him for his next contract, but long term? Makes zero sense.

Veteran leadership is probably the most overrated aspect of the NBA, to be honest. You have coaches, teammates, and the great ones pave their own way. It's a grown man's league, and veterans are always the last ingredient, not the first.

lakerRD wrote:Hill would be terrific even after one year.
This year, if we're lucky to get him, we should only sign him for one year in order to keep flexiblity for next year.
Then next year, I'd potentially think about signing him for more years after we've signed our max FAs.
He'd be a perfect 2 next to Lonzo for years to come

I agree with you LakerRD.

If Hill signs a 1 year deal with us, it provide so many options for us. At the least, we might be able to use him in a S&T in the summer or resign him over the cap, if necessary, depending on how the summer of 2018 shapes up.

Interesting philosophy .
Veterans bring different value to different teams and cultures.
For the most part I agree with you Miles.
A team like GSW or even CLE has very little use for someone like Hill.
Hill brings added value to a team in search of identity. A team full of potential and full of talent which is trying to find a way to channel that talent .
A team like ours can use a Davy veteran like Hill.
To help us play unselfish team ball.

For a team like ours , I think veteran leadership means more than meets the eye

Funny how last year we couldnt get a damn interview with anyone (in fact, in the last 3-4 years) and had to settle on throwing big money at Deng and Moz plus an added 4th year so that they would sign with us. Now, we have a chance at a high talent like Hill and some of the Laker fans are turning up their noses at him.

SMH...

lakerRD wrote:Hill would be terrific even after one year.
This year, if we're lucky to get him, we should only sign him for one year in order to keep flexiblity for next year.
Then next year, I'd potentially think about signing him for more years after we've signed our max FAs.
He'd be a perfect 2 next to Lonzo for years to come

Is that possible? If he becomes a UFA and the FO maxes out the capspace on signing free agents, wouldn't the MLE be the best he could get?

Lakers wouldn't have Hill's Bird rights.

Edit: Though the non-Bird exception still would apply.

Hunter103 wrote:

lakerRD wrote:Hill would be terrific even after one year.
This year, if we're lucky to get him, we should only sign him for one year in order to keep flexiblity for next year.
Then next year, I'd potentially think about signing him for more years after we've signed our max FAs.
He'd be a perfect 2 next to Lonzo for years to come

Is that possible? If he becomes a UFA and the FO maxes out the capspace on signing free agents, wouldn't the MLE be the best he could get?

Lakers wouldn't have Hill's Bird rights.

Edit: Though the non-Bird exception still would apply.

Good question .
My assumption is that we'd have his bird rights.
We would if we did a sign and trade for him.

lakerRD wrote:Interesting philosophy .
Veterans bring different value to different teams and cultures.
For the most part I agree with you Miles.
A team like GSW or even CLE has very little use for someone like Hill.
Hill brings added value to a team in search of identity. A team full of potential and full of talent which is trying to find a way to channel that talent .
A team like ours can use a Davy veteran like Hill.
To help us play unselfish team ball.

For a team like ours , I think veteran leadership means more than meets the eye

Established teams dont need veterans, but its usually the vetarns that helped them get there...

Warriors needed veterans like Bogut and Iggy...
The Heatles needed veterans like Battier, Juwan and Mike Miller..
Thunder had Nazr, D Fish and Perkins...

So on and so on...

will this even happen? jeez wish things would hury up.

Meh. Probably Hill using us for leverage.