Hill/Leonard - trade that worked out for both teams

[Orient Express]

I wonder how come analysts aren't making more of the fact that the Hill-Leonard draft day trade has really worked out for both teams? If Indiana beats the heat, there will actually be a good chance that both teams could see each other in the finals.

[katyspursfan]

I've heard it mentioned in both Indiana and Spurs games.

[JuanCaca]

Spurs, Duncan want George Hill to return?


Written by Jeff Garcia | 13 May 2012

The San Antonio Spurs traded fan favorite George Hill to the Indiana Pacers during the 2011 NBA Draft
for rookie Kawhi Leonard, a move that had Spurs fans scratching their heads and asking why trade a proven asset for an unproven rookie.
Fast forward to today and it would seem the trade as worked great for San Antonio and Indiana.
Both Leonard and Hill are helping their team in the playoffs (both Spurs and Pacers are in the Western and Eastern Conference Semi-Finals respectively) and have been key to their team's overall success this season.
But could the Spurs, who need a back up point guard (no offense to rookie Cory Joseph), be interested in bringing back Hill?
Hill recently turned down a contract extension with Indiana and will be a restricted free agent this summer and according to the New York Daily News, San Antonio wants him to return to the team.
Pacers PG George Hill is helping his value. He turned down a $6 million-per-year extension before the season and now might get more this summer as a restricted free agent. The Spurs and Tim Duncan, especially, want him to return to San Antonio, but San Antonio might not be able to afford him.
As the report states, it would be difficult to bring back Hill financially. Duncan, Boris Diaw, Gary Neal, James Anderson, and Danny Green will be free agents this summer. Not to mention the Spurs hold the team option (at $1,054,000) for DeJuan Blair next season and will have to decide whether to bring him back. Also, Patty Mills has a player option after this summer (at $1,000,000).
Moreover, the Pacers might be willing to match any offer the Spurs or other teams make for Hill thus driving up the cost to a point San Antonio wouldn't be able to match.
However, it's not like the Spurs have succeeded in bringing back players after a trade. Sean Elliott spent the 1993-1994 season with the Detroit Pistons in a trade for Dennis Rodman. The next season, the Spurs traded back for Elliott.
But with the financial situation the Spurs are under and with Hill looking for a lucrative long-term contract, it would seem Hill's chances of coming back to the Alamo City are slim. So much for the revival of Hill and Blair's video series "Big n' Smallz."

[KAD]

well the Pacers are fishing now and the Spurs are still alive

[Jose_TheGenius]

we'd need George Hill why?

his defense is still as crappy as it was in SA and he's not a point guard to be backing up Parker (granted he's not as hideous as Neal). we got Mills too.

whatever happens, we'll be looking to keep this roster in tact and add a cheap peace. Hill was decent here, but let's keep that in the past.

[Uwe Blab]

KY is contributing more in the playoffs than Hill ever did. I'd say it was a one-sided deal.

[katyspursfan]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

KY is contributing more in the playoffs than Hill ever did. I'd say it was a one-sided deal.

There's no telling who IND would have taken, had they not had an agreement with the Spurs. They could have easily blown the pick, like the team before them.
I think it's fair to argue that Hill helped the Pacers as a known commodity. He was a good fix for a hole they had. Any rookie, even KY, might not have succeeded as much.

Leonard is still doing more than Hill ever did in SA. By that token, it was a good deal for SA.
But to ignore what Hill did for IND is ignoring facts. Or, at least, dismissing them without the proper discussion. Will-ish, if you will.

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by katyspursfan

There's no telling who IND would have taken, had they not had an agreement with the Spurs. They could have easily blown the pick, like the team before them.
I think it's fair to argue that Hill helped the Pacers as a known commodity. He was a good fix for a hole they had. Any rookie, even KY, might not have succeeded as much.

Leonard is still doing more than Hill ever did in SA. By that token, it was a good deal for SA.
But to ignore what Hill did for IND is ignoring facts. Or, at least, dismissing them without the proper discussion. Will-ish, if you will.

Will-ish. Good stuff. Yes, but given what we know, it definitely favors the Spurs. Watching game 6 last night reminded me of how frustrated I was when he played here. He's a good (far from great) role player and that's it.

[katyspursfan]

Originally Posted by Uwe Blab

Will-ish. Good stuff. Yes, but given what we know, it definitely favors the Spurs. Watching game 6 last night reminded me of how frustrated I was when he played here. He's a good (far from great) role player and that's it.

Maybe favors the Spurs, but they had much more to work with.
1. Spurs are healthy this year. That might be the difference between a first round loss and a WCF appearance with Hill.
2. Spurs' holes were fewer. Find a defensive perimeter player, and let's go! IND had/has more to plug.

The addition of Hill for IND MAY be the next step that leads to this off season step that leads to the ECF.

Both teams have performed better in this year's playoffs. There is no debate on that. For that reason alone, I think you should wait to call a winner. As of Friday, May 25th, Spurs are only guaranteed one more round than IND.

I think Leonard will be the better overall player. He appears to have achieved Georgie's ceiling this year. Sometime in 2014, we'll be able to make a truly fact-laden decision on the trade.

[WILLTHETHRILL]

Originally Posted by katyspursfan

There's no telling who IND would have taken, had they not had an agreement with the Spurs. They could have easily blown the pick, like the team before them.
I think it's fair to argue that Hill helped the Pacers as a known commodity. He was a good fix for a hole they had. Any rookie, even KY, might not have succeeded as much.

Leonard is still doing more than Hill ever did in SA. By that token, it was a good deal for SA.
But to ignore what Hill did for IND is ignoring facts. Or, at least, dismissing them without the proper discussion. Will-ish, if you will.

I guess katyspurs-ish is not using the correct facts in a discussion. Jeremy Lin fortune cookies anyone?

[Uwe Blab]

Originally Posted by katyspursfan

Maybe favors the Spurs, but they had much more to work with.
1. Spurs are healthy this year. That might be the difference between a first round loss and a WCF appearance with Hill.
2. Spurs' holes were fewer. Find a defensive perimeter player, and let's go! IND had/has more to plug.

The addition of Hill for IND MAY be the next step that leads to this off season step that leads to the ECF.

Both teams have performed better in this year's playoffs. There is no debate on that. For that reason alone, I think you should wait to call a winner. As of Friday, May 25th, Spurs are only guaranteed one more round than IND.

I think Leonard will be the better overall player. He appears to have achieved Georgie's ceiling this year. Sometime in 2014, we'll be able to make a truly fact-laden decision on the trade.

You have a soft spot Georgie boy don't you? Granted, Hill never had a healthy Spurs team in the playoffs, but that shouldn't have stopped him from playing the kind of defense we thought he could play, and that KY is already playing.

[Orient Express]

consider also if Bertans or Lorbek work out, then the trade will certainly turn out in SA's favor (although again, the point is that both teams did improve as a result; SA will just improve MORE).