Jordan Hill?

[mckennaspur1]

D'Antoni and Hill hated each other in NYC and are about to be reunited in LA. Any chance Spurs could make some hay on this? Say Bonner and/or Blair for JH?

[maldoror]

Lakers wouldn't touch that. Hill is their energy guy who gets offensive boards and has the length to defend bigs. Bonner and Blair can't fill that role.

[mckennaspur1]

Yeah, but Bonner could spread the floor on offense (something D'Antoni likes).

How much do Hill and D'Antoni hate each other? How far will D'Antoni go to put his stamp on this team?

[spurduncan21]

Originally Posted by mckennaspur1

Yeah, but Bonner could spread the floor on offense (something D'Antoni likes).

How much do Hill and D'Antoni hate each other? How far will D'Antoni go to put his stamp on this team?

Good point, but I do not see the Lakers making any trade with an in-conference rival that could potentially make them better. I wopuld trade bonner for someone of value. His value is nothing now and you'd be foolish to not think other teams see it the same way

[Jose_TheGenius]

Originally Posted by mckennaspur1

D'Antoni and Hill hated each other in NYC and are about to be reunited in LA. Any chance Spurs could make some hay on this? Say Bonner and/or Blair for JH?

the Lakers would prefer to give him to an out of conference rival like the Heat for nothing than to trade significant players to the Spurs for him (significant/relevant guys from us like a Neal, Blair, or Bonner who would probably crack their rotation)

[Mombear]

Hill who?

[SleepyAdamII]

I'll be honest, I have been lurking Lakersground, and they do have several page post on the need for a stretch 4, namely chris anderson. I think we could make it work lol....

[esparzar1]

Hill is garbage.....no thanks. He hustles but I wouldn't take him. Splitter actually looked pretty decent last night against their bigs...

[katyspursfan]

Originally Posted by Mombear

Hill who?

George, right?

[Kager]

Jordan Hill would be a huge upgrade over Bonner/Blair, I think he already shows in limited time with a limited role that he can board and block and as said bring energy.

In less time than Blair he is better by a bit in all areasa and in 6 more min than Bonner do not even bother comparing.

That makes it pretty clear that Lakers are not going to consider this even to spread the floor, but if it looks like they will then get the signature on the spot don't let them go home and talk to their wife about it.

[tenthousandaces]

Originally Posted by Kager

Jordan Hill would be a huge upgrade over Bonner/Blair, I think he already shows in limited time with a limited role that he can board and block and as said bring energy.

In less time than Blair he is better by a bit in all areasa and in 6 more min than Bonner do not even bother comparing.

That makes it pretty clear that Lakers are not going to consider this even to spread the floor, but if it looks like they will then get the signature on the spot don't let them go home and talk to their wife about it.

Blair was matched up against Hill last night and IMHO, outplayed him. Blair had the highest +/- of the game with +12. That counts for something.

[grizzly_bexar]

COnsidering one of the Lakers' weaknesses is outside shooting, sending them Matt Bonner doesn't really sound like a good idea.

Especially for a guy who is nothing more than a hustle big man off the bench.

[Kager]

Originally Posted by tenthousandaces

Blair was matched up against Hill last night and IMHO, outplayed him. Blair had the highest +/- of the game with +12. That counts for something.

Hey don't get me wrong I am not throwing Blair under the bus like many just having seen how Hill plays and he does have the stats to match I would be happy if the Lakers like shooting bloodnuts.

[Jose_TheGenius]

Originally Posted by tenthousandaces

Blair was matched up against Hill last night and IMHO, outplayed him. Blair had the highest +/- of the game with +12. That counts for something.

+/- on this is useless by itself. the Lakers were depleted without a bench and the Spurs still had a bit of Manu, Jackson, and Diaw.

both guys could not do a thing while they're on the court but the Spurs (with a better bench) could score 5 points and Blair would be +5 while Hill would be -5 in that instance. overall Blair did play better than him (hustled and went after loose balls even though the put up stupid shots while Hill just committed idiotic fouls).

[tenthousandaces]

Originally Posted by Jose_TheGenius

+/- on this is useless by itself. the Lakers were depleted without a bench and the Spurs still had a bit of Manu, Jackson, and Diaw.

both guys could not do a thing while they're on the court but the Spurs (with a better bench) could score 5 points and Blair would be +5 while Hill would be -5 in that instance. overall Blair did play better than him (hustled and went after loose balls even though the put up stupid shots while Hill just committed idiotic fouls).

You know Jose, you might be right if Blair didn't have a track record of strong +/- scores. But he does, and you're not.

And, yes, of course +/- must be viewed in conjunction with other factors, but not limited to box score statistics.