RealGM

I love Hill; I think he's one of the most underrated players in the league. Utah just acquired him for the 12th pick. The Wizards got Morris -- someone I believe to be a worse player, but under contract for longer -- for the 13th pick. They both make $8M.

Who would you rather have?

Always thought George Hill as more of a combo guard. A good sixth man off the bench and defender and with Dante Exum coming back, Utah can use him several ways. Not a big fan of starting point guards that average 3.5 assists per game.

I think they're comparable when you factor that Morris' contract is a bit longer. Hill's $8M contract lasts just one more year, at which point he will become a free agent when the salary cap is at its highest. If he signs a new contract for just 15% of the salary cap (which is somewhat low for a starter), he'll cost $16M a year. Hill is also 4 years older than Morris.

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think the Indy move is much worse. It's really a #12 pick for a one-year rental. That's almost as bad as the #5 for Mike Miller trade.

neither...they're both not difference makers

Was Hill available to give the Wizards a mid-season jolt? Nuff said!

New Markieff Morris branded energy drink! JOLT! BYOB (Bring Your Own Bong)

Trading for Hill would have been a terrible move. He would just walk after 1 year to any number of teams where he could be a starter - which he's going to do to Utah, assuming Exum is still their annointed future PG.

George Hill is a good player, an okay starter and an ideal 6th man but the contract situation & age would have made it a real short term deal. Trading for Morris was not the right move, but same goes for Hill.

The guy to trade our pick for was Isaiah Thomas which I was screaming for us to do two years ago when Phoenix was shopping him and he went to Boston for a protected 1st.

Dat2U wrote:George Hill is a good player, an okay starter and an ideal 6th man but the contract situation & age would have made it a real short term deal. Trading for Morris was not the right move, but same goes for Hill.

The guy to trade our pick for was Isaiah Thomas which I was screaming for us to do two years ago when Phoenix was shopping him and he went to Boston for a protected 1st.

If I remember correctly we had a deal for Thomas all but done until the 3rd team involved backed out at the last minute.

it's almost as if the vast majority of the posters on this forum were completely off base in their relentless criticism of the Morris trade

gtn130 wrote:it's almost as if the vast majority of the posters on this forum were completely off base in their relentless criticism of the Morris trade

Making the all-star team changed a lot of minds

gtn130 wrote:it's almost as if the vast majority of the posters on this forum were completely off base in their relentless criticism of the Morris trade

What's off-base? That Ernie pissed away a lottery pick when Phoenix couldn't get another team to offer up a late 1st for Morris? Or the fact we gave up 4 years of control on a rookie contract for a likely average NBA player so we could pay Morris more than $7 mil per for slightly below average production.

Dat2U wrote:

gtn130 wrote:it's almost as if the vast majority of the posters on this forum were completely off base in their relentless criticism of the Morris trade

What's off-base? That Ernie pissed away a lottery pick when Phoenix couldn't get another team to offer up a late 1st for Morris? Or the fact we gave up 4 years of control on a rookie contract for a likely average NBA player so we could pay Morris more than $7 mil per for slightly below average production.

It's near consensus that this draft is very weak, so whatever formula you're using to claim that the #12 pick would "likely" be average is entirely -- get this -- off base.

gtn130 wrote:

Dat2U wrote:

gtn130 wrote:it's almost as if the vast majority of the posters on this forum were completely off base in their relentless criticism of the Morris trade

What's off-base? That Ernie pissed away a lottery pick when Phoenix couldn't get another team to offer up a late 1st for Morris? Or the fact we gave up 4 years of control on a rookie contract for a likely average NBA player so we could pay Morris more than $7 mil per for slightly below average production.

It's near consensus that this draft is very weak, so whatever formula you're using to claim that the #12 pick would "likely" be average is entirely -- get this -- off base.

You mean like the consensus said the 2009 draft was very weak and trading a pick for two solid veterans makes a ton of sense.

You relying on a "near consensus" is what's off base.

Dat2U wrote:

gtn130 wrote:

Dat2U wrote:
What's off-base? That Ernie pissed away a lottery pick when Phoenix couldn't get another team to offer up a late 1st for Morris? Or the fact we gave up 4 years of control on a rookie contract for a likely average NBA player so we could pay Morris more than $7 mil per for slightly below average production.

It's near consensus that this draft is very weak, so whatever formula you're using to claim that the #12 pick would "likely" be average is entirely -- get this -- off base.

You mean like the consensus said the 2009 draft was very weak and trading a pick for two solid veterans makes a ton of sense.

You relying on a "near consensus" is what's off base.

You serious?

What are you even suggesting? If everyone including NBA front offices believe the draft is bad, what exactly should they do? Making decisions based on things you believe is kinda how the world works...

And your example is terrible. Steph Curry coming out of the 2009 draft does not validate anything as the top 13 picks of that year still had 6 complete busts. Trading for Miller/Foye was bad but that doesn't mean the entire concept of trading out of the draft is bad.

gtn130 wrote:

Dat2U wrote:

gtn130 wrote:
It's near consensus that this draft is very weak, so whatever formula you're using to claim that the #12 pick would "likely" be average is entirely -- get this -- off base.

You mean like the consensus said the 2009 draft was very weak and trading a pick for two solid veterans makes a ton of sense.

You relying on a "near consensus" is what's off base.

You serious?

What are you even suggesting? If everyone including NBA front offices believe the draft is bad, what exactly should they do? Making decisions based on things you believe is kinda how the world works...

And your example is terrible. Steph Curry coming out of the 2009 draft does not validate anything as the top 13 picks of that year still had 6 complete busts. Trading for Miller/Foye was bad but that doesn't mean the entire concept of trading out of the draft is bad.

I'm suggesting that a "consensus" means absolutely nothing. Teams typically don't rely on consensus. Or at least good ones don't. Teams rely on their own internal scouting. Rubio, Curry, DeRozan, Holiday & Teague all came out of that 2009 draft so it wasn't a weak draft to those teams. Nor was it weak to the numerous teams that scooped up talented prospects in the late 1st/early 2nd like DeMarre Carroll, Taj Gibson, Patrick Beverley, Patty Mills, etc...

The 2016 draft has been regarded as weak... at the top of draft but also regarded as a draft with plenty of depth. It's probably not a great year to have a #3 pick but a great year to have the #15 (see 2013 where Porter was #3 & Antetokounmpo was #15). Bottom line a good scouting department can find talent, especially late lottery. There's always going to be available talent... it's just a matter of the team making the right selection with their pick. Now if you wanted to argue Ernie is incapable of drafting good talent and that's why the pick should have been traded, then you'd have a better argument.

Dat2U wrote:

gtn130 wrote:

Dat2U wrote:
You mean like the consensus said the 2009 draft was very weak and trading a pick for two solid veterans makes a ton of sense.

You relying on a "near consensus" is what's off base.

You serious?

What are you even suggesting? If everyone including NBA front offices believe the draft is bad, what exactly should they do? Making decisions based on things you believe is kinda how the world works...

And your example is terrible. Steph Curry coming out of the 2009 draft does not validate anything as the top 13 picks of that year still had 6 complete busts. Trading for Miller/Foye was bad but that doesn't mean the entire concept of trading out of the draft is bad.

I'm suggesting that a "consensus" means absolutely nothing. Teams typically don't rely on consensus. Or at least good ones don't. Teams rely on their own internal scouting. Rubio, Curry, DeRozan, Holiday & Teague all came out of that 2009 draft so it wasn't a weak draft to those teams. Nor was it weak to the numerous teams that scooped up talented prospects in the late 1st/early 2nd like DeMarre Carroll, Taj Gibson, Patrick Beverley, Patty Mills, etc...

The 2016 draft has been regarded as weak... at the top of draft but also regarded as a draft with plenty of depth. It's probably not a great year to have a #3 pick but a great year to have the #15 (see 2013 where Porter was #3 & Antetokounmpo was #15). Bottom line a good scouting department can find talent, especially late lottery. There's always going to be available talent... it's just a matter of the team making the right selection with their pick. Now if you wanted to argue Ernie is incapable of drafting good talent and that's why the pick should have been traded, then you'd have a better argument.

Ding, ding, ding! That was my sentiment from the first time we made the trade. I don't love Morris but he's capable and if he continues to improve the 3-point shot, he could be an asset. Grunfeld would have found a way to botch the #12 pick or take a Euro to stash for 2-3 years.

Actually, from what I've read "the consensus" (if there is one) is that this draft is deep. In any case, the consensus doesn't mean a thing -- it was everybody's firm consensus that the 2011 draft was weak, thin, a really bad draft. It's turned out exactly the opposite.

Still, it's fine to trade out of a draft, this one or any other one. It's all about what you get. We got a sub-par player no one else seemed to want even though he was being shopped all season.

A long series of moves of this kind have left us with a grand total of six players on our roster, and those same moves also left us well out of the playoffs in the weaker of the two conferences. I will remind you, gtn & ballboy, that more than half the teams in the league make the playoffs. Where does that leave us, do you think? And, why are we going to be so much better this coming year? Can't see it, sorry.

The Spurs are looking to move up in this draft.

That tells me there's depth.

Also, I think Utah should have just traded their pick for Teague but then again he probably didn't want to sign an extension there.

I'd rather have Durant for 5 years!

Think big, LOSERS!