Hill vs. Jennings, Redux
By HOWARD BECK
For a player with a brief résumé and no history of mischief-making, Jordan Hill generates an impressive amount of controversy and consternation.

In November, Donnie Walsh, the Knicks’ president, repeatedly had to justify his decision to draft Hill over Brandon Jennings, the flashy Milwaukee Bucks point guard.

For months, fans fretted that Hill was not in Coach Mike D’Antoni’s rotation and, even worse, had to wonder if maybe he just wasn’t good enough.

In February, the Knicks sent Hill to Houston in the Tracy McGrady trade, raising questions of whether the team gave up on him too soon.

On Sunday, Hill made a semitriumphant return to Madison Square Garden, scoring a career-high 13 points in a Rockets victory. You could almost feel the crowd cringe with every put-back.

Hill’s return also sparked an overheated debate over whether D’Antoni likes rookies, prompting D’Antoni’s clumsy defense that he doesn’t like “bad rookies’’ — a broad statement that was interpreted as a shot at Hill.

This, in turn, prompted an in-depth analysis of D’Antoni’s actual record with rookies (N.B.A. FanHouse), his propensity for making imprudent remarks (The Daily News) and his general handling of players (Yahoo).

It was certainly too soon in November to judge whether Hill would live up to his billing as the eighth pick in the 2009 draft. It is too soon now to say whether the Knicks will regret trading him in their quest to clear salary-cap room.

But — at the risk of adding another layer of angst to the Jordan Hill file — it is fair to conclude this much: Drafting Hill surely cost the Knicks when they made the McGrady deal.

Consider the course of negotiations:

¶The Rockets wanted top value in exchange for McGrady’s $23 million expiring contract. Hill was not enticing enough, since the Knicks also wanted Houston to take Jared Jeffries’s contract.

¶When negotiations with the Knicks stalled, Houston instead agreed to send McGrady to Sacramento for Kevin Martin, an All-Star-caliber guard.

¶Once the Sacramento deal was struck, the Rockets re-engaged the Knicks and made it a three-way deal, with McGrady coming to New York.

The price of obtaining McGrady was steep. The Knicks gave up Hill, their first-round draft pick in 2012 and the right to swap first-round picks in 2011. So, if everything goes horribly wrong, the Knicks will have given up three lottery picks for McGrady’s expiring contract.

It is fair to wonder: What if the Knicks had instead drafted Jennings? Hill’s potential is clear, but Jennings is a star now and his trade value — whether in a direct deal with Houston or in a three-way trade — would have far exceeded Hill’s. The Knicks surely would not have had to surrender two first-round picks.

Of course, this assumes that the Knicks would have been willing to trade Jennings at all. One could only imagine the outcry if they swapped a rookie of the year candidate for a 30-year-old guard with a bad knee.

Source: http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/hill-vs-jennings-redux/

Does this make Howard Beck a hack now?

Seriously though Howard Beck seems to be the most level headed NY Knick sports writer and him saying this holds a little more weight than a "fan" on the internet.

AnubisADL wrote:

Hill vs. Jennings, Redux
By HOWARD BECK
For a player with a brief résumé and no history of mischief-making, Jordan Hill generates an impressive amount of controversy and consternation.

In November, Donnie Walsh, the Knicks’ president, repeatedly had to justify his decision to draft Hill over Brandon Jennings, the flashy Milwaukee Bucks point guard.

For months, fans fretted that Hill was not in Coach Mike D’Antoni’s rotation and, even worse, had to wonder if maybe he just wasn’t good enough.

In February, the Knicks sent Hill to Houston in the Tracy McGrady trade, raising questions of whether the team gave up on him too soon.

On Sunday, Hill made a semitriumphant return to Madison Square Garden, scoring a career-high 13 points in a Rockets victory. You could almost feel the crowd cringe with every put-back.

Hill’s return also sparked an overheated debate over whether D’Antoni likes rookies, prompting D’Antoni’s clumsy defense that he doesn’t like “bad rookies’’ — a broad statement that was interpreted as a shot at Hill.

This, in turn, prompted an in-depth analysis of D’Antoni’s actual record with rookies (N.B.A. FanHouse), his propensity for making imprudent remarks (The Daily News) and his general handling of players (Yahoo).

It was certainly too soon in November to judge whether Hill would live up to his billing as the eighth pick in the 2009 draft. It is too soon now to say whether the Knicks will regret trading him in their quest to clear salary-cap room.

But — at the risk of adding another layer of angst to the Jordan Hill file — it is fair to conclude this much: Drafting Hill surely cost the Knicks when they made the McGrady deal.

Consider the course of negotiations:

¶The Rockets wanted top value in exchange for McGrady’s $23 million expiring contract. Hill was not enticing enough, since the Knicks also wanted Houston to take Jared Jeffries’s contract.

¶When negotiations with the Knicks stalled, Houston instead agreed to send McGrady to Sacramento for Kevin Martin, an All-Star-caliber guard.

¶Once the Sacramento deal was struck, the Rockets re-engaged the Knicks and made it a three-way deal, with McGrady coming to New York.

The price of obtaining McGrady was steep. The Knicks gave up Hill, their first-round draft pick in 2012 and the right to swap first-round picks in 2011. So, if everything goes horribly wrong, the Knicks will have given up three lottery picks for McGrady’s expiring contract.

It is fair to wonder: What if the Knicks had instead drafted Jennings? Hill’s potential is clear, but Jennings is a star now and his trade value — whether in a direct deal with Houston or in a three-way trade — would have far exceeded Hill’s. The Knicks surely would not have had to surrender two first-round picks.

Of course, this assumes that the Knicks would have been willing to trade Jennings at all. One could only imagine the outcry if they swapped a rookie of the year candidate for a 30-year-old guard with a bad knee.

Source: http://offthedribble.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/hill-vs-jennings-redux/

Does this make Howard Beck a hack now?

Seriously though Howard Beck seems to be the most level headed NY Knick sports writer and him saying this holds a little more weight than a "fan" on the internet.

This is the exact same debate we've been having here --- the stuff you bolded. Everything from the mistake of drafting Hill since his value was so low, to the dumping of all of our future assets...everything.

So yeah, to answer your question. D'ivatoni stans are already firing up their hate mail for Beck.

knicks1248 wrote:Suppose Hill doesn't really develope into anything more then a solid role player, and if the knicks make the playoffs (which is almost a sure thing) for the next few years+, how are those picks even relevent.

same thing people said about the curry deal.

TMS wrote:there are a lot of what if's when it comes to that Jordan Hill selection, not the least of which would have been had he been seeing regular playing time from the beginning of the season if that would have effected his trade value... he obviously had very little after the way he was handled this season... whether it was a mistake not taking Brandon Jennings or not, i think it's fair to assume we completely mishandled the #8 lottery selection regardless & we probably wouldn't have had to give up so much to dump Fishlips' contract if things were done differently this year.

this is why i dont understand why folks get mad when its brought up that the FO/coaches didnt handle this well... if we end up with dlee + filler, its even worse. not cuz dlee is a scrub, cuz we ended up blowing a lottery pick to resign our own player. didnt the don say he couldnt screw up the draft picks when he got to ny?

Jennings came out of the gate strong but has since been a pretty bad player who has shown flashes of potential. Those flashes are very impressive but the overall product isn't sensational.

However it is obvious that of the two Jennings has a much MUCH better chance at being a solid starting NBA player for his career than Hill does.

You also can't discount Jennings' attitude problems and approach to the game. It's not a good look. Maybe he matures and leaves it behind but if he keeps it with him into his future seasons (ala Nate) then he's not a guy you want to cry over not drafting.

In the end we should have tried to just dump FishLips using the pick on draft night. Maybe we get it done.

All in the past though. On to the future. We've got four very good young players, all playing very well, infinite cap space, a couple of young unknowns, a coach players love, a GM that is respected league wide.

In a pretty good place right now. Too good of a place to worry about what was anymore.

knicks1248 wrote:Suppose Hill doesn't really develope into anything more then a solid role player, and if the knicks make the playoffs (which is almost a sure thing) for the next few years+, how are those picks even relevent.

that's another big what if... what if we get Lebron & Bosh & win a championship next year? what if those picks end up to be 2 HOF calibre players that we gave away? we can go all day with this if u really want to... let's try & stick to things more tangible... we pretty much botched that #8 lottery pick this year otherwise we wouldn't have had to trade it away to dump a $7 million dollar salary this summer.

AnubisADL wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

sidsanders wrote:he assumes too many things... jennings playing well and/or not having issues with mike for 1. IF hill played early and often and the results were ok, how does that alter the hou trade? many ifs/assumptions that dont make for a solid arg from a "journalist"

So we can assume he would have sat Tyreke Evan or Stephen Curry if we had drafted them.

why assume anything? the debate has no solid foundation outside of what happened (jennings playing well in mil, hill traded). anything else and it ends up on too many tangents.

You are right. However, Scott Skiles is not the friendliest coach in the league and him and Jennings get along fine. Therefore I can assume he would have likley gotten along with D'Antoni.

Remember the comments Skiles has made about Curry while in Chicago.

Reporter: "Scott, what do you think Eddy can do to improve his rebounding?"
Skiles: "Jump"

CLASSIC

skiles <> mike though. i dont see any safe way to predict results of a young guy in a diff style, diff team, diff playing env, diff city, etc... too many variables, too many unkowns. its like tms said. FO messed up the pick and the following process ***so far***. maybe it will turn out ok if lbj signs.

knicks1248 wrote:

sebstar wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Suppose Hill doesn't really develope into anything more then a solid role player, and if the knicks make the playoffs (which is almost a sure thing) for the next few years+, how are those picks even relevent.

same thing people said about the curry deal.

We still did well in that draft, I mean geez!! they took noah, at this point no one at the # 12 pick was taking us anywhere, they had just as much potential as Curry....At th time.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2007/index

We also had zero incentive to tank that year since Chicago could swap picks.

AnubisADL wrote:

sidsanders wrote:skiles <> mike though. i dont see any safe way to predict results of a young guy in a diff style, diff team, diff playing env, diff city, etc... too many variables, too many unkowns. its like tms said. FO messed up the pick and the following process ***so far***. maybe it will turn out ok if lbj signs.

You brought up Jennings clashing with D'Antoni because it was assumed that Jennings was a headcase with an attitude problem. That assumption has already been proven wrong. Maybe he would have collected splinters on the bench here but the facts are he is a humble young guy and he wanted to be drafted by NY.

i only brought that up as a possibility to show that the assumptions can go in many diff directions (to contradict the beck article).
my point is still too many diff ways to take this by transplanting jennings into ny at #8. current status of that pick is: it didnt go so hot. that status may change 7/1/2010 or soon after for the better (or could get worse -- yuk).