nixluva wrote:I find it amusing how far everyone is going with the MDA n DW bashing over this kid TD not getting a lot of PT and then the trade of Hill. In the end neither player is going to be the difference between a title for us or not. I remember how so many here used to use the Bulls as the example of how inept we were and how they were on their way to a contender with the talent they had. It hasn't exactly turned out that way even after they got a huge gift in drafting Rose. Building a winning team is extremely hard but the one thing you must have is the stud lead players at the core. That's why we traded Hill and a pick.

Hill is not a lead player and that means he's an expendable asset. I'm sure he'll be a fine player but we're trying to bring in bonafide studs. Who cares about ancillary players like Hill? The Bulls had a bunch of those guys and it doesn't get u over the top. Top 10 talents get u over the top. We can replace guys like Hill but getting a real stud is the hardest thing to do. So sacrificing Hill was well worth it to improve our chances of getting players that put you in title contention.

Wow weren't you the guy talking about rebuilding when Gallo was drafted? How Walsh was going to be patience vs. Isiah and Layden. Nix when you crash and burn from your latest management high. You have to go back and check out some of the stuff you just threw out there in defense of management. You were all of the spectrum.

Paladin55 wrote:

Cosmic wrote:

Marv wrote:
it's hill PLUS a #1 PLUS a swapping of a #1.

hill didn’t have a chance to develop here. you may not like what you saw in his potential but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the potential to develop. the write-off is yours and yours alone. you’re certainly entitled to it but it doesn’t mean you’re correct in your assumption.

The extra pick is too much but the picks don't make Jordan Hill a good player or not. That's a different argument.

Meanwhile I have said what I have to say on this guy. He's nothing special. So I'll just leave one more thing about him.

Seems to me that you have almost staked your credibility as a UK player/talent evaluator on whether or not Hill becomes a "good" player. If he becomes a 20/10/2B guy many people are going to question your ability to judge talent:

Some people will never again be able to fully accept, or even consider, your judgment of a player;

Some may even doubt their own judgement if you proclaim a player they like to be a future NBA star.

In a few years, new posters on UK, dazzled by what seems to be basketball knowledge and what appears to be your ability to talk about and evaluate BB talent, will have to be cautioned by those posters, such as Marv, who were around when you declared Hiil, now a perennial All Star beloved by the state of Texas, the city of Houston, and Rocket fans throughout the world, a scrub.

...In other words, and most ironically, if Hill turns out to be a good NBA player, you will never be "over the Hill" as long as you continue to post under the same name.

If everyone was held to their opinions as you want me to be then this forum would have zero members. You included would have to leave in shame.

Pharzeone wrote:JHill with only five points and four rebounds (4 offensive) tonight but it sounds like it the Scola show. 44 points and 12 rebounds from the bruiser.

Pairing Lee with Scola is probably not the front court we're looking to compete with though. Nor should we.

We wouldn't know if he would've played good post D because we didn't give him a chance??

firefly wrote:Uh, Randolph scored 30 shooting over 50%, and the Grizzlies scored 64 points in the paint. Was your point to say Hill is a good defender, or that the rest of the Rockets were so bad that he's the best of a bad bunch? Don't think your point stacks up here BRIGGS.

According to highlight coverage, it was the later. Hill dominated during his time. It appears his 9 points and 8 rebounds all came in the second quarter against Randolph. Hill forced the Grizzlies to go away from Randolph as an option. Sounds like a game of coaching and adjustments. Man do I miss those.

http://www.nba.com/games/20100317/MEMHOU/gameinfo.html?ls=gt2hp0020901012

Sort of like Douglas, he played well when given minutes and he is doing it again, but the coach makes it seem like he wasn't ready? On a lottery team?

I still can't believe we traded a lotto pick to get rid of Jeffries. Imagine if we had played him more and he played ok, we would have been able to at least get more (but probably would have stuck with him.)

Sorry Andrew, couldn't find this thread (really, looked on the last 5 pages and it was probably under my nose).
My post from the other thread:

Last night vs. Memphis - 20 mins, 3-3, 9pts, 9 rebounds / 4 OFFENSIVE, 5 fouls (I like that). (Anybody see how he played? I'm just stat checking.)

Again, why couldn't mike have used this guy? This was against a 36 - 33 Memphis team.

nope, we couldn't use a young talented frontcourt player who can score, rebound & block shots on this team.

TMS wrote:11 pts / 7 reb / 5 blks in 27 min on 5 of 10 shooting vs. the Celtics

nope, we couldn't use a young talented frontcourt player who can score, rebound & block shots on this team.

Channing Frye

Cry me a freakin' river.