What do we do with Hill?

LApwnd · Post #1 » by **LApwnd** » Wed May 20, 2015 10:44 pm

I never wanted to mgmt. to pick up his opt and that headline a few weeks back saying mgmt. was leaning towards picking it up. I would hope with the pick being a big we'd move on from him and maybe try to get Ed back at half the rate. I really don't think anybody is gona give us anything of value for Hill, nobody was interested at the deadline as far as treating him as expiring so I don't see how he has any value now when his opt. has to be picked up 1st before he can be traded.

TKainZero · Post #2 » by **TKainZero** » Thu May 21, 2015 12:05 am

Don't pick him up
Not hard

LApwnd · Post #3 » by **LApwnd** » Thu May 21, 2015 12:15 am

TKainZero wrote:Don't pick him up
Not hard

well yeah thats my pref. but last report was mgmt. would pick up his opt. in hopes of using him as trade bait but I'm wondering who would trade for him and give us anything that we value?

Showtime:Part2 · Post #4 » by **Showtime:Part2** » Thu May 21, 2015 12:16 am

TKainZero wrote:Don't pick him up
Not hard

Ya basically

Post #5 » by **Slava** » Thu May 21, 2015 12:45 am

I really can't one more year of his lazy ass rotations and mid range chucking. Please get rid.

ArC_man · Post #6 » by **ArC_man** » Thu May 21, 2015 2:43 am

Dump him.

One Love · Post #7 » by **One Love** » Thu May 21, 2015 3:43 am

Hill is most likely done with the Lakeshow as we probably go big & Okafor/Towns & Randle will eat up allot of minutes... We need the money for guards & small forwards...

TylersLakers · Post #8 » by **TylersLakers** » Thu May 21, 2015 4:06 am

I would let him out of his contract, however, possibly re-negotiate a long term extension with him for a less dollar figure per year. Maybe something like a 3 year, 16-18M deal or something.

LApwnd · Post #9 » by **LApwnd** » Thu May 21, 2015 4:33 am

TylersLakers wrote:I would let him out of his contract, however, possibly re-negotiate a long term extension with him for a less dollar figure per year. Maybe something like a 3 year, 16-18M deal or something.

Id rather give that money to ed to be honest....ever since hill added that jump shot to his game ne longer did the dirty work down low that we use to love him for and his hustle and d has also diminished

SlimShady83 · Post #10 » by **SlimShady83** » Thu May 21, 2015 5:17 am

Unless we can somehow get LMA/Gasol etc to come to LA then LA should keep Hill

C:Hill/Okafor/E.Davis??
PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly

While I like the idea of giving the rookies some playing time, they do need to earn it and having the experience of boozer/hill will help - I don't like the idea of HIll starting or getting 25+ min a game 20-25 a game is fine for Hill.

That's most likely our front line next year, maybe Kelly goes to SF for 10-15min a game and we Have black there???????????

Jedi32 · Post #11 » by **Jedi32** » Thu May 21, 2015 5:56 am

I wouldn't mind keeping him and bringing him off the bench.

PKABOOICU · Post #12 » by **PKABOOICU** » Thu May 21, 2015 6:20 am

best case scenario would have been to trade him for a SF....i liked demarre carroll but he just hurt his knee pretty badly today...

SF spot would be a gaping hole....im very confident the lakers will sign rondo, and he will be pretty good in LA...SF is the main concern...maybe trade up from the 27th pick+hill for a lottery pick? don't know how that stuff works but it would be great for us.

eckoner · Post #13 » by **eckoner** » Thu May 21, 2015 6:45 am

He's a capable big vet who will have suitors around the league. However i think his days as a Laker are over.

Showtime:Part2 · Post #14 » by **Showtime:Part2** » Thu May 21, 2015 6:56 am

skullz wrote:Unless we can somehow get LMA/Gasol etc to come to LA then LA should keep Hill

C:Hill/Okafor/E.Davis??
PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly

While I like the idea of giving the rookies some playing time, they do need to earn it and having the experience of boozer/hill will help - I don't like the idea of HIll starting or getting 25+ min a game 20-25 a game is fine for Hill.

That's most likely our front line next year, maybe Kelly goes to SF for 10-15min a game and we Have black there???????????

If we get Okafor or towns... I would be stunned and disappointed if we start a scrub like hill over them. This was the same logic that had Ronnie price starting over clarkson. Won't matter tho bc he will get injured after 20 games

laduane1 · Post #15 » by **laduane1** » Thu May 21, 2015 7:45 am

Trade him for a mid round pick to send to phil or orlando for there pay off.

john248 · Post #16 » by **john248** » Thu May 21, 2015 8:11 am

Let him go. Sick of his no defense. He needs a change of scenery.

ALL HAIL · Post #17 » by **ALL HAIL** » Thu May 21, 2015 8:20 am

skullz wrote:Unless we can somehow get LMA/Gasol etc to come to LA then LA should keep Hill

C:Hill/Okafor/E.Davis??
PF: Boozer/Randle/Kelly

While I like the idea of giving the rookies some playing time, they do need to earn it and having the experience of boozer/hill will help - I don't like the idea of HIll starting or getting 25+ min a game 20-25 a game is fine for Hill.

That's most likely our front line next year, maybe Kelly goes to SF for 10-15min a game and we Have black there???????????

I definitely agree with what you're saying in theory, however the execution is a bit off in my opinion.

Although Hill and Boozer are both veterans, they, in my opinion, wouldn't have very much to teach Okafor and Randle in what they need the most tutelage in: defense.

If Okafor is indeed the pick, he really needs a veteran PF next to him who can teach him and hide him a bit as well. Okafor also needs a veteran center in front him that he respects and who can, at the very least, be better than him on the defensive end.

Again, if Okafor is the pick, I'd love if the Lakers could somehow pry Pau Gasol away from the Bulls to start at center in front of Okafor.

Gasol is no defensive monster by any stretch, but I think it's fair to say that he'd be defensively better than Okafor would be next year. I think it's fair to say that Gasol would at the very least set the bar at a level that Okafor could aspire to jump over.

The Bulls are in a bit of disarray. They have four bigmen that demand minutes (Noah, Gasol, Mirotic, Gibson), they'll be severely over the cap when they resign Butler, and they need to find more consistent minutes for Mirotic who has proven himself to be a reliable, productive player on a bargain contract.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Taj Gibson and one of Gasol or Noah let go.

Acquiring both Gasol and Gibson to play in front of Okafor and Randle would be absolutely perfect.

Unfortunately, in addition to sending the Bulls Ed Davis (S&T), the cost for such a move may cost the Lakers Clarkson.

Personally, I'd do it. Beside the fact that I don't value Clarkson as much as nearly everyone else, I just really think both Randle and Okafor would need a year or two of tutelage before they're ready for consistent 33+ minute nights.

Also, call me sentimental all you want, but it seems only right that Gasol would be on this team with Kobe as both their careers come to a close.

dipstick · Post #18 » by **dipstick** » Thu May 21, 2015 9:06 am

http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakers/la ... story.html

According to the article, picking up Jordan Hill's contract limits our spending power from 22m to around 13m. Based on that alone, he should be released.

Marionettetc · Post #19 » by **Marionettetc** » Thu May 21, 2015 9:18 am

The money spent on hill would be better allocated on Davis

jorge · Post #20 » by **jorge** » Thu May 21, 2015 9:59 am

At this price Hill is to expensive to keep him. Tarik Black can do all the dirty work Hill did in the past and for less money.
Than Ed is a much better option.

So I don't see any reason to keep him if not as a trade asset.