nixluva wrote:What exactly did it matter that the Rockets played Hill? What did he really accomplish with more time the next season. He's the same damn player. So it basically proves that just cuz you give a kid more minutes it doesn't guarantee he'll produce. TD had plenty of games in his rookie year where he got a load of minutes, but he also had periods of time where he didn't play well and so he fell out of the rotation. That is kind of what happens to most rookies. It's on in this bizarro world of MDA haters that rookies just get to play no matter whether they deserve the minutes or not.

Walsh said he wished he could have kept Hill, whom he selected as the eighth pick in the 2009 NBA Draft.

"It's part of the trade I really didn't want to do," Walsh said. "Bottom line is I did it. But I really didn't want to give up on him because I like him just like Toney [Douglas]. Both are going to be good NBA players and [I] still think that about Jordan.

"What it came down to -- you know what it came down to -- it put us in a more flexible position this summer."

D'Antoni, however, said he felt Hill was wrong to make a broad generalization about his disdain toward playing young players.

"I don't have anything against rookies at all, I like them," D'Antoni said. "Jordan was in a position, if you noticed, where we had Al [Harrington], Jared [Jeffries], David Lee, [Darko] Milicic for a while. We had about five guys. Rookies are usually in the pecking order of the last guy.

"He didn't get a great chance, but we're trying to thread the needle and make the playoffs," D'Antoni added.

"I do like Jordan. I think he'll be a nice player in the league. But that's as far as it goes. For the record, I do like rookies. I like good rookies."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/pipe_down_hill_5PjmtNAJwqEQI0OTi0W6wO#ixzz1TcNMYpKB

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:What exactly did it matter that the Rockets played Hill? What did he really accomplish with more time the next season. He's the same damn player. So it basically proves that just cuz you give a kid more minutes it doesn't guarantee he'll produce. TD had plenty of games in his rookie year where he got a load of minutes, but he also had periods of time where he didn't play well and so he fell out of the rotation. That is kind of what happens to most rookies. It's on in this bizarro world of MDA haters that rookies just get to play no matter whether they deserve the minutes or not.

This from March 10 of that season when the Knicks were 20 games below .500 and would only win 5 more games with a month left in the season. I love that Darko, who only played in the first 7 games was given as part of the excuse why Hill didn't play.

Walsh said he wished he could have kept Hill, whom he selected as the eighth pick in the 2009 NBA Draft.

"It's part of the trade I really didn't want to do," Walsh said. "Bottom line is I did it. But I really didn't want to give up on him because I like him just like Toney [Douglas]. Both are going to be good NBA players and [I] still think that about Jordan.

"What it came down to -- you know what it came down to -- it put us in a more flexible position this summer."

D'Antoni, however, said he felt Hill was wrong to make a broad generalization about his disdain toward playing young players.

"I don't have anything against rookies at all, I like them," D'Antoni said. "Jordan was in a position, if you noticed, where we had Al [Harrington], Jared [Jeffries], David Lee, [Darko] Milicic for a while. We had about five guys. Rookies are usually in the pecking order of the last guy.

"He didn't get a great chance, but we're trying to thread the needle and make the playoffs," D'Antoni added.

"I do like Jordan. I think he'll be a nice player in the league. But that's as far as it goes. For the record, I do like rookies. I like good rookies."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/pipe_down_hill_5PjmtNAJwqEQI0OTi0W6wO#ixzz1TcNMYpKB

I wish it worked out with Hill and AR, but we moved on. If Walsh felt strongly that either guy was the answer he would never have traded them, despite how much MDA played them or not. How hard is it to replace players like Hill and AR who haven't yet managed to put together a season where they have really had an impact? The Knicks can choose from a pool of FA's with these guys in it: Joel Pryz, Kwame Brown, Aaron Gray, Jeff Foster, Kyrylo Fesenko, Jason Collins, Alexis Ajinca, Kurt Thomas, Francisco Elson, Hilton Armstrong, Jamaal Magloire

So many of these guys could help this team inside. We don't need a superstar at the C spot to contend.

Further the plan to improve the team thru Free Agency was already decided upon. Unless Hill came in a showed right away, he was gonna have a target on his back as an asset to move in a trade. He didn't impress anyone with his poor work ethic to start the year. Even being given more PT he still hasn't exactly set the world on fire. If he was still here last year he likely gets traded in the Melo deal anyway.

CrushAlot wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

As far as Jordan Hill, he stills a backup Forward/Center with Houston just as he was with the Knicks. He averaged 10 minutes per game with us and is now averaging 15 minutes with the Houston Rockets, wow big difference, such a great player.

Just to clarify about Hill. He had 30 dnps coache's decision over the 54 games he was a knick. He was sitting behind Jeffries and Bender and the team was playing for nothing, going nowhere and the only players who were supposed to be around following the season were Hill, Douglas, Gallo and Chandler. He was the eigth pick in the draft and his value was so low that the Knicks also had to send a 1st overall only protected draft pick to the Rockets. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why Johnathon Bender got minutes over Hill on a team that started 1-10 out of camp and only won 29 games.

then you haven't been paying attention. Or you haven't really taken time to look at the situation.

I guess I haven't been paying attention. Can you provide a link to a thread that explains the 30 dnps Hill got when the team was made up of limited vets that were gone after the season and had no chance to make the playoffs. Or if you can explain it I would love to find out how the 8th pick in the draft was used so little that a basically unprotected first round pick had to be included with him when he was traded in a salary dump.

First 30 DNPs have nothing to do with Bender's time. 2 different topics.

And you can't come up with anything?

- Hill is a PF/C. He was competing with Lee, Harrington, JJ, Chandler, Gallo, Landry, Bender (and for a week Darko).
- He came into camp and season out of shape.
- He's a rookie who really wasn't that good or yet had not found his groove.
- I guess you follow the philosophy of playing a player just to give playing time whether they earn it or not, see Eddie Curry on that. MDA obviously has differing opinion as do many other Championship level coaches.
- the biggest month where Hill got DNPs was December 2010, and the Knicks were actually on a roll until January, where their record ended at 15-20 and still in the playoff hunt. Team went something like 12-8 in that stretch.

Would everyone like to have seen rookie play more? Sure. Do all rookies get to play? no. From Spurs to Memphis to OKC, rookies could have played but didn't. Such is life in the NBA.

First of all I would take Marcus Landry right off of your list of guys Hill was competing with. My guess is Mike D'Antoni couldn't identify Landry in a line up of one.

Gallo and Chandler are small forwards and I believe that season Chandler played the two quite a bit that year. Both of those guys were signed beyond the summer of 2010 so they definitely were in the teams plans for the future and they needed to be playing. Lee was the best player on the team and Harrington needed to be given minutes. Jeffries and Bender's minutes are the ones that really bothered me. The GM set the team up with expiring contracts. The goal and the plan was all about 2010 not making the playoffs in 09-10. The playoffs were pretty much out of the question after the team came out of camp and went 3-14. Playing a core group of vets makes sense if your are competing for the playoffs and possibly a championship like D'Antoni's teams in Phoenix. However, the Knicks were neither competing for the playoffs or tanking for the lottery. The season was as close to a throw away season as there is possible. Hill and Douglas were supposed to be a part of the future. D'Antoni endorsed the Hill pick and compared him to Amare. Hill isn't a bad kid he just was sent to the end of the bench and apparently forgotten about. If your team goal is to build for 2010 and more than half your roster is going to be gone at the end of the season how do you justify not playing the young guys. It certainly can't be because the team was competing for the playoffs becuase there was no way that team was overcoming the poor start out of training camp. If you are implying that the team had more success in December because Hill was on the bench, I think you have to remember that he only played in 8 games during the 3-14 stretch and averaged about 7 minutes. However, December shouldn't matter. The team was not going to make the playoffs and not finding minutes for the rookies on a team that was going to be blown up at the end of the season didn't and still doesn't make sense. I don't follow the philosophy of a player being given minutes if they didn't earn it. I also don't follow the philosophy of not playing lottery picks or coaching them when your team is playing for nothing, the guys getting the minutes ahead of the rookie are not that good, have expiring contracts and are not a part of the teams future. There were some great quotes about Hill from Shane Battier when he first got to Houston. The one I remember was that he said it was like Hill had missed his entire first year.

Just because the Knicks were trading for expiring contracts, that didn’t mean that they were quitting on the season, the goal was to remained competitive while maneuvering the cap (See the link below). Also remember that aside from Hill, they also had other young players that were farther developed and needed to show these guys how to win more games, even if it was just 30 wins.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-12-22/sports/17912614_1_knicks-danilo-gallinari-donnie-walsh

As far as Shane Battiers comments, I wonder what he would say now that his boy Hill still averaging just 15 minutes per game in Houston and Hill just turned 24 yesterday, meaning that while still young, he wasn’t necessarily a teenager when we drafted him.

It was 29 wins and 53 losses. Also the core of the team was the same as the previous season and they still came out of training camp and went 1-9 and then 3-14. Someone either wasn't trying hard or was not working as the coach wasn't playing any of the new additions anyway.

See Crush in one post you want MDA to throw away the season the next post you turnaround and blame him for winning 29 games. This is a classic example of why reason takes a leave when you guys start bashing the coach.

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

We're not talking about starter's minutes. Just something above DNP-Coaches decision. It's not starters or no minutes.(black and white) The vets leaving the team shouldn't cause hell over that. If they do you have to do what's better for the team. It's obvious MDA missed the boat on TD who probably would still be warming bench if Walsh hadn't intervened and that when he got minutes it failed to cause 'hell' on earth or in the locker room.

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

We're not talking about starter's minutes. Just something above DNP-Coaches decision. It's not starters or no minutes.(black and white) The vets leaving the team shouldn't cause hell over that. If they do you have to do what's better for the team. It's obvious MDA missed the boat on TD who probably would still be warming bench if Walsh hadn't intervened and that when he got minutes it failed to cause 'hell' on earth or in the locker room.

Hill damaged his own chances of seeing more minutes with is poor work ethic. SL out of shape, Training Camp and in practices wasn't going as hard as he could. That's not a good way to convince a coach to play you. TD had some really good games and some really bad ones and that led to him seeing more bench time, but he was going to play, lets not make it sound like the ONLY reason TD got more minutes is cuz Walsh showed up. Hill playing more minutes in his 2nd year didn't do much to improve his game so why would it have been such a big thing in year one? There's just no evidence that it would make a big difference in the long run. This team was going for much bigger fish and Hill was an asset to be traded. I doubt if he played more that he would've been enough to get teams to make a deal without a pick.

Also this idea that vets won't cause a problem if their minutes are reduced is not true. SELFISH vets playing for their next contract will INDEED make a stink if you play some rook that is out there foundering around in stead of them. Remember we had a lot of vets at the end of their contract on this team and they wanted to play to improve their chances of getting a new contract somewhere. What would you rather have a couple of rookies sitting their pouting or a bunch of vets not afraid to talk beefing about a lack of minutes? Vets have a bigger voice.

espite reports about Jordan Hill’s questionable work ethic, many people who have been around the Knicks during practices and workouts, including Tommy Dee, continue to call his work ethic an attribute as opposed to a flaw.

Big men need time to develop, and the ones that don’t develop end up like Hilton Armstrong or Sean Williams, guys who came into the league raw and stayed that way. Whether it be a weak work ethic, a lack of coaching, or both, it’s harder for big men to adjust to the big leagues than guards.

Watch any clip of a Knicks practice, and you will see Jordan Hill in the background working with Herb Williams on his post moves. He started playing basketball his junior year of high school, and came into college an unpolished, no-name, skinny 6’10 big man. He left one of the best big men in college basketball. Check the stats. Every year, Hill improved at Arizona. That was through coaching changes, teammate changes, and Nic Wise as his point guard.

Hasheem Thabeet is raw, Al Jefferson was raw, Derrick Favors, Greg Monroe, and Cole Aldrich will struggle when they come into the league. Rarely, you get a four year guy like Roy Hibbert who comes in as a polished player, but he lacks athleticism or speed. Hill showed tonight that he has the skills. If he continues to work and play, and after tonight, believe me, he will, he’ll be fine.

73 Comments Tweet This
http://www.theknicksblog.com/2010/01/16/in-defense-of-jordan-hill/

nixluva wrote:The question of whether Hill will develop soon, in some time or never is the reason you don't base your decision solely on his upside. He was clearly a player that was going to take time to develop if at all. His current showing in his 1st 2 years are evidence of that. Meanwhile we quickly turned him and other assets into PROVEN talent. That was my argument then and it made sense. If you can get a proven talent in their prime it's better than a prospect and a draft pick which has only potential as it's main value. A known star beats a ? pick and yet unproven potential. That's why this team is now a playoff team as opposed to a team full of prospects and potential.

The Celtics traded youth, picks and potential for Known talent and it led to a Title. The Knicks have done the same thing but had to do it over time, still within one season we ended up with STAT and Melo in their primes. IMO the assets traded may have been many, but in the end it was worth it. For a team that was going nowhere, this was a worthwhile endeavor. Now much like the Mavericks we have to fill in the holes in order to build a championship team. Would it have been nice to have one more asset as opposed to trading one along with Hill? SURE! Still it hasn't left us with no options like the Heat have. We still have bullets left in the clip.

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

I don't think anyone is saying that Hill should have been getting mega minutes. However, 12-15 minutes a night seems logical given the circumstances. 29 dnps in 53 games on a 29 win team filled with guys that wouldn't be back doesn't make sense.

Well, Hill is playing fifteen minutes per game consistently with the Rockets, how is he a better player or is he trade value any higher at this point? I don’t think so, and I may argue that his trade value is actually lower since is very clear that after two years, he still a project, that has ways to go for a lottery pick selection.

Also, when assessing playing time for one particular player, you have to take into consideration how he fit with the rest of the team, remember that we also had other young player like Gallo and Wilson that were learning their role on the team. So you can’t have a guy on the floor, which is constantly getting in others players way (or don’t know his role), this why some times veteran players are important whether they stay or leave the team.

Last, I don’t understand why you bring TD to this conversation or question his minutes when in fact TD has developed nicely under MD.

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

I don't think anyone is saying that Hill should have been getting mega minutes. However, 12-15 minutes a night seems logical given the circumstances. 29 dnps in 53 games on a 29 win team filled with guys that wouldn't be back doesn't make sense.

Well, Hill is playing fifteen minutes per game consistently with the Rockets, how is he a better player or is he trade value any higher at this point? I don’t think so, and I may argue that his trade value is actually lower since is very clear that after two years, he still a project, that has ways to go for a lottery pick selection.

Also, when assessing playing time for one particular player, you have to take into consideration how he fit with the rest of the team, remember that we also had other young player like Gallo and Wilson that were learning their role on the team. So you can’t have a guy on the floor, which is constantly getting in others players way (or don’t know his role), this why some times veteran players are important whether they stay or leave the team.

Last, I don’t understand why you bring TD to this conversation or question his minutes when in fact TD has developed nicely under MD.

In regards to Hill I am not sure but are you saying the team shouldn't have tried to develop him when they were playing for nothing that year because he is so bad it would hurt his value. I disagree if that is your point. Hill went to Houston, a team actually competing for the playoffs and got more minutes then Jeffries for the rest of that year and put up mumbers. Teams do give players minutes to develop.

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

I don't think anyone is saying that Hill should have been getting mega minutes. However, 12-15 minutes a night seems logical given the circumstances. 29 dnps in 53 games on a 29 win team filled with guys that wouldn't be back doesn't make sense.

Well, Hill is playing fifteen minutes per game consistently with the Rockets, how is he a better player or is he trade value any higher at this point? I don’t think so, and I may argue that his trade value is actually lower since is very clear that after two years, he still a project, that has ways to go for a lottery pick selection.

Also, when assessing playing time for one particular player, you have to take into consideration how he fit with the rest of the team, remember that we also had other young player like Gallo and Wilson that were learning their role on the team. So you can’t have a guy on the floor, which is constantly getting in others players way (or don’t know his role), this why some times veteran players are important whether they stay or leave the team.

Last, I don’t understand why you bring TD to this conversation or question his minutes when in fact TD has developed nicely under MD.

Regarding Douglas, I gave very detailed reasons why I included him in making my points. Read back through thread because it involves some numbers, dnps coaches decisions and when he finally got minutes, minutes before and after Walsh traveled with the team etc.

In regards to Hill I am not sure but are you saying the team shouldn't have tried to develop him when they were playing for nothing that year because he is so bad it would hurt his value. I disagree if that is your point. Hill went to Houston, a team actually competing for the playoffs and got more minutes then Jeffries for the rest of that year and put up mumbers. Teams do give players minutes to develop.

I never said that Douglas didn’t get DNPS, what I don’t understand is why you make it look like it was bad thing at that time when in fact Douglas has develop nicely under MD since he arrived in NY. Different players require different approach, and the end result has being positive with Douglas, so I won’t question the method.

Regarding Hill, didn’t I provide you with a link where MD clearly said that the Knicks’ goal was to remain competitive for the year? May be YOU believed that they were “playing for nothing” but that is not necessarily what our coaching staff had in mind so please take a look at the link and you will understand.

As far as developing Hill, he is 6.10 and he was a Knick, so of course I wanted him to develop and become a good player for us; however I can’t really bash MD for not playing someone who still a backup to the league smallest center 6.6 Chuck Hayes on a decent team, nevertheless a non playoff team.
Last, as far as production, Hill averaged with the Knicks was 4.0 points and 2.5 rebounds in 10.5 minutes, with the Rockets he averages 6.4 points and 4.9 rebounds in 16.2 minutes, almost 6 more minutes, how is that putting up numbers? To me, Hill is almost the same player he was with the Knicks, with fewer enigmas obviously .