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.
Moderators: Kilroy, TyCobb, Danny Darko
lakerRD wrote:I'd much rather have Hill than Redick
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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
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.
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