J-Hill: benched again for no sane reason

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:52 pm

JGC wrote:
tttppp wrote:Hill isn't worth a first round draft pick. This is a bad trade for the Lakers.


We didn't trade for Hill. Cmon. You predicted Durant would be better than Oden. With that kind of basketball acumen, I'd expect you to know this!


What did we trade for then?

I'm glad you remembered I picked Durant over Oden.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby brickshooter on Sun Mar 18, 2012 10:57 pm

tttppp wrote:
JGC wrote:
tttppp wrote:Hill isn't worth a first round draft pick. This is a bad trade for the Lakers.


We didn't trade for Hill. Cmon. You predicted Durant would be better than Oden. With that kind of basketball acumen, I'd expect you to know this!


What did we trade for then?

I'm glad you remembered I picked Durant over Oden.


Strickly a salary dump.
brickshooter

 
Posts: 879
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 8:26 am

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:01 pm

brickshooter wrote:
Strickly a salary dump.


Then why do you have to give up a first round pick for that? If you are giving away your picks when you need them, just to dump salary, you are not committed to winning.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby therealdeal on Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:23 pm

tttppp wrote:
brickshooter wrote:
Strickly a salary dump.


Then why do you have to give up a first round pick for that? If you are giving away your picks when you need them, just to dump salary, you are not committed to winning.


pick= salary.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 36924
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:26 pm

therealdeal wrote:
tttppp wrote:
brickshooter wrote:
Strickly a salary dump.


Then why do you have to give up a first round pick for that? If you are giving away your picks when you need them, just to dump salary, you are not committed to winning.


pick= salary.


So we're now too cheap to pay rookies making a small rookie salary?
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby therealdeal on Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:36 pm

tttppp wrote:So we're now too cheap to pay rookies making a small rookie salary?


Now? We've been doing that for most of this run. Sasha's trade was another great example.

If we use that pick and draft a guy he's on a guaranteed contract for at least 2 years. Instead we trade away those picks for guys that can actually help now.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 36924
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:27 am

therealdeal wrote:
tttppp wrote:So we're now too cheap to pay rookies making a small rookie salary?


Now? We've been doing that for most of this run. Sasha's trade was another great example.

If we use that pick and draft a guy he's on a guaranteed contract for at least 2 years. Instead we trade away those picks for guys that can actually help now.


How does Hill help us now?

Rookies get paid next to nothing in NBA terms. Considering a first round pick usually gets you an impact player, you have to be really cheap just to piss it away to another team. This isn't the NFL or MLB. In the NBA, rookies aren't allowed to make much money, even if they produce. You are stupid if you give away your picks because you don't want to pay them, especially when you have room on your roster for them. The Lakers basically only have 3 guys who produce on this team (we'll see what Sessions brings). The Lakers could use their picks to replace almost anyone else on this roster.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby nduri on Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:37 am

tttppp wrote:
therealdeal wrote:
tttppp wrote:So we're now too cheap to pay rookies making a small rookie salary?


Now? We've been doing that for most of this run. Sasha's trade was another great example.

If we use that pick and draft a guy he's on a guaranteed contract for at least 2 years. Instead we trade away those picks for guys that can actually help now.


How does Hill help us now?

Rookies get paid next to nothing in NBA terms. Considering a first round pick usually gets you an impact player, you have to be really cheap just to piss it away to another team. This isn't the NFL or MLB. In the NBA, rookies aren't allowed to make much money, even if they produce. You are stupid if you give away your picks because you don't want to pay them, especially when you have room on your roster for them. The Lakers basically only have 3 guys who produce on this team (we'll see what Sessions brings). The Lakers could use their picks to replace almost anyone else on this roster.


The problem is that you don't really replace them if they are on the books. Luke is a prime example, long term contract, no value. You just can't replace him with a first round draft pick. You can add production if you draft well, but Luke is still at the end of the bench collecting checks. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about putting the best team on the floor, especially with the TV deal. You make money, the players make money, the station makes money and the fans get an exciting, winning product to support. But, in the long run I think this is what's happening.
Back at'cha 24-7
User avatar
nduri

 
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:52 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby khmrP on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:08 am

tttppp wrote:
How does Hill help us now?

Rookies get paid next to nothing in NBA terms. Considering a first round pick usually gets you an impact player, you have to be really cheap just to piss it away to another team. This isn't the NFL or MLB. In the NBA, rookies aren't allowed to make much money, even if they produce. You are stupid if you give away your picks because you don't want to pay them, especially when you have room on your roster for them. The Lakers basically only have 3 guys who produce on this team (we'll see what Sessions brings). The Lakers could use their picks to replace almost anyone else on this roster.


he doesn't, we dont pick up his opt this year he's basically expiring...what so hard bout that? Like I said this is probably the only team I ever seen give away a 1st rd pick to dump an EXPIRING contract i.e. Sasha trade. Except in this trade we got rid of Fish extra year, makes me mad that Minn own so stupid and doesn't think outside the box, they didn't want to take that risk of paying Fish if he opted in but looking at this Hou situation Fish would've definetly asked for a buyout with Minn too, Minn bunch of dumb [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.], Crawford could have definetly help their playoff push.
User avatar
khmrP

 
Posts: 9956
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 10:45 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:04 pm

nduri wrote:
The problem is that you don't really replace them if they are on the books. Luke is a prime example, long term contract, no value. You just can't replace him with a first round draft pick. You can add production if you draft well, but Luke is still at the end of the bench collecting checks. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about putting the best team on the floor, especially with the TV deal. You make money, the players make money, the station makes money and the fans get an exciting, winning product to support. But, in the long run I think this is what's happening.


This doesn't make much sense. What exactly are you saying?
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:06 pm

khmrP wrote:
tttppp wrote:
How does Hill help us now?

Rookies get paid next to nothing in NBA terms. Considering a first round pick usually gets you an impact player, you have to be really cheap just to piss it away to another team. This isn't the NFL or MLB. In the NBA, rookies aren't allowed to make much money, even if they produce. You are stupid if you give away your picks because you don't want to pay them, especially when you have room on your roster for them. The Lakers basically only have 3 guys who produce on this team (we'll see what Sessions brings). The Lakers could use their picks to replace almost anyone else on this roster.


he doesn't, we dont pick up his opt this year he's basically expiring...what so hard bout that? Like I said this is probably the only team I ever seen give away a 1st rd pick to dump an EXPIRING contract i.e. Sasha trade. Except in this trade we got rid of Fish extra year, makes me mad that Minn own so stupid and doesn't think outside the box, they didn't want to take that risk of paying Fish if he opted in but looking at this Hou situation Fish would've definetly asked for a buyout with Minn too, Minn bunch of dumb [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.], Crawford could have definetly help their playoff push.


If getting rid of Fisher is your objective, why not just buy him out like Houston did? You would get rid of most of Fisher's salary and get to keep your pick.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby khmrP on Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:11 pm

tttppp wrote:
khmrP wrote:
tttppp wrote:
How does Hill help us now?

Rookies get paid next to nothing in NBA terms. Considering a first round pick usually gets you an impact player, you have to be really cheap just to piss it away to another team. This isn't the NFL or MLB. In the NBA, rookies aren't allowed to make much money, even if they produce. You are stupid if you give away your picks because you don't want to pay them, especially when you have room on your roster for them. The Lakers basically only have 3 guys who produce on this team (we'll see what Sessions brings). The Lakers could use their picks to replace almost anyone else on this roster.


he doesn't, we dont pick up his opt this year he's basically expiring...what so hard bout that? Like I said this is probably the only team I ever seen give away a 1st rd pick to dump an EXPIRING contract i.e. Sasha trade. Except in this trade we got rid of Fish extra year, makes me mad that Minn own so stupid and doesn't think outside the box, they didn't want to take that risk of paying Fish if he opted in but looking at this Hou situation Fish would've definetly asked for a buyout with Minn too, Minn bunch of dumb [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.], Crawford could have definetly help their playoff push.


If getting rid of Fisher is your objective, why not just buy him out like Houston did? You would get rid of most of Fisher's salary and get to keep your pick.


beats me but that is a good point, although how bad would mgmt look if they tried to negotiate a buy out with Fish?
User avatar
khmrP

 
Posts: 9956
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 10:45 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby KobeSystemtwofour on Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:29 pm

According to Mike Brown Jordan Hill wont get much playing time
“If somebody had their life on the line, and they’ve got their options on who they want to save their life – tell me who you’re going to pick?” Bryant asked. “You’re going to look at the stats first?”
User avatar
KobeSystemtwofour

 
Posts: 6238
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 11:52 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:54 pm

khmrP wrote:
beats me but that is a good point, although how bad would mgmt look if they tried to negotiate a buy out with Fish?


It would certainly look bad, but my point is it certainly looks bad trading away a guy who makes $3 million to cut costs. In NBA terms, Fisher makes pennies. Trading away a guy like Fisher and apparently a draft pick because you don't want to pay Fisher or a draft pick, sends a bad message to your players and fans. I mean don't you get a little frustrated that this team could be significantly better if management was just willing to pay its own players? Its frustrating to me. If the Lakers keep this up, they'll miss out on a lot of championships and cost them lots of fans. I've seen other teams do what Lakers management is doing now, and they lost a lot of fans.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby khmrP on Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:58 pm

^^^Like I said bro, I have NEVER seen a team trade a 1st rd pick to dump an expiring before like we did with Sasha, so it is what it is, they doing whats best finacially for them. Whether that will turn around and bite us in the butt will remain to be seen, as of now these late picks that they're selling or shipping away hasn't turned into much, at least I dont think it has.
User avatar
khmrP

 
Posts: 9956
Joined: Sat May 26, 2007 10:45 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:06 pm

khmrP wrote:^^^Like I said bro, I have NEVER seen a team trade a 1st rd pick to dump an expiring before like we did with Sasha, so it is what it is, they doing whats best finacially for them. Whether that will turn around and bite us in the butt will remain to be seen, as of now these late picks that they're selling or shipping away hasn't turned into much, at least I dont think it has.


I think it is hurting us. Thats two first round picks we know they have burned so far. A first round pick usually gets you an impact player. Outside of the Laker big 3 or now 4 (i guess), the Lakers have plenty of room for good young players.

In 2008, I could understand giving away a pick because the roster was full. But there are plenty of openings now.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby last stand on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:13 pm

Mike brown is just saying that to be PC. If mcroberts and Murphy keep playing the way they are hill will get a shot
everyone has their top 10 lists of women heres mine

1. emma watson
2. Natalie Portman
3. Mila Kunis
4. Emma Stone
5. Megan Fox
6. jessica biel
7. Teresa Palmer
8. Katy Perry
9. jessica alba
10. Olivia Wilde
last stand

 
Posts: 7351
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:43 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby MusixFinest on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:13 pm

tttppp wrote:
khmrP wrote:
tttppp wrote:
How does Hill help us now?

Rookies get paid next to nothing in NBA terms. Considering a first round pick usually gets you an impact player, you have to be really cheap just to piss it away to another team. This isn't the NFL or MLB. In the NBA, rookies aren't allowed to make much money, even if they produce. You are stupid if you give away your picks because you don't want to pay them, especially when you have room on your roster for them. The Lakers basically only have 3 guys who produce on this team (we'll see what Sessions brings). The Lakers could use their picks to replace almost anyone else on this roster.


he doesn't, we dont pick up his opt this year he's basically expiring...what so hard bout that? Like I said this is probably the only team I ever seen give away a 1st rd pick to dump an EXPIRING contract i.e. Sasha trade. Except in this trade we got rid of Fish extra year, makes me mad that Minn own so stupid and doesn't think outside the box, they didn't want to take that risk of paying Fish if he opted in but looking at this Hou situation Fish would've definetly asked for a buyout with Minn too, Minn bunch of dumb [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.], Crawford could have definetly help their playoff push.


If getting rid of Fisher is your objective, why not just buy him out like Houston did? You would get rid of most of Fisher's salary and get to keep your pick.


The two parties have to mutually agree on the contract buy-out. Since Fisher never would have agreed to one, they decided to trade him away.

They could have amnestied him, but methinks they are saving that one for later. Kobe, perhaps. And I'm only half-joking...
MusixFinest

 
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:24 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby Doc Brown on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:16 pm

The best we could have done last year in the draft was Norris Cole, Chandler Parsons and Isaiah Thomas.

The best we could have done in 2010 looking back was Landry Fields.

The best we could have done in 2009 looking back was Marcus Thorton or Dejuan Blair

The best we could have done in 2008 looking back was Mbah a Moute or Mario Chalmers.

With the exception of Norris Cole those were all second rounders. In the positions we would have drafted in the 1st round, we would have not been able to draft anyone, except Cole, that we couldn't get in the 2nd round.

1st round picks for us are moot because we are always at the bottom of the round.
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 18259
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:17 pm

MusixFinest wrote:
The two parties have to mutually agree on the contract buy-out. Since Fisher never would have agreed to one, they decided to trade him away.

They could have amnestied him, but methinks they are saving that one for later. Kobe, perhaps. And I'm only half-joking...


If the Lakers made it clear they don't want him, he might accept a buyout to play for another team. I wouldn't buy him out if I was ownership, nor would I trade him and a pick to dump his salary. I'm just saying a buyout would be an option.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby KB24 on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:19 pm

I dunno why people think a first round pick means ANYTHING.

Seriously, take a look at the drafts...there are so many players that fail to make an impact.

I can tell you we gave up 2 late first rounders for Sessions and Hill and also got rid of 10 mio. salary for next season and reduced this years salary too...thats fantastic.

There is a 90+% chance that a pick in the 20-30 range ends up being a worse player than Hill...
Image

"It is not how big you are, it is how big you play"
"Basketball doesn't build character. It reveals it"
"Be strong in body, clean in mind, lofty in ideals"
User avatar
KB24
Site Admin
 
Posts: 55502
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: In Heaven

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:21 pm

Doc Brown wrote:The best we could have done last year in the draft was Norris Cole, Chandler Parsons and Isaiah Thomas.

The best we could have done in 2010 looking back was Landry Fields.

The best we could have done in 2009 looking back was Marcus Thorton or Dejuan Blair

The best we could have done in 2008 looking back was Mbah a Moute or Mario Chalmers.

With the exception of Norris Cole those were all second rounders. In the positions we would have drafted in the 1st round, we would have not been able to draft anyone, except Cole, that we couldn't get in the 2nd round.

1st round picks for us are moot because we are always at the bottom of the round.


I disagree, first round picks usually get you contributors. You have a very good percentage with first rounders. Even if you are picking in the second round, you still have a chance at getting very good players. The guy we traded a 1st for (Sessions), was a second rounder. Marc Gasol was a second rounder, Ginobli was a second rounder. It happens all the time.
tttppp

 
Posts: 2096
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:39 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby last stand on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:22 pm

Not to mention that not only is it top 20 protected but Dallas can also choose what year to give it to us for the next 3 years I believe.

The pick was useless. Why would Dallas cough it up in a deep draft. They'll cough it up in a crappy draft
everyone has their top 10 lists of women heres mine

1. emma watson
2. Natalie Portman
3. Mila Kunis
4. Emma Stone
5. Megan Fox
6. jessica biel
7. Teresa Palmer
8. Katy Perry
9. jessica alba
10. Olivia Wilde
last stand

 
Posts: 7351
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:43 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby Doc Brown on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:24 pm

tttppp wrote:
Doc Brown wrote:The best we could have done last year in the draft was Norris Cole, Chandler Parsons and Isaiah Thomas.

The best we could have done in 2010 looking back was Landry Fields.

The best we could have done in 2009 looking back was Marcus Thorton or Dejuan Blair

The best we could have done in 2008 looking back was Mbah a Moute or Mario Chalmers.

With the exception of Norris Cole those were all second rounders. In the positions we would have drafted in the 1st round, we would have not been able to draft anyone, except Cole, that we couldn't get in the 2nd round.

1st round picks for us are moot because we are always at the bottom of the round.


I disagree, first round picks usually get you contributors. You have a very good percentage with first rounders. Even if you are picking in the second round, you still have a chance at getting very good players. The guy we traded a 1st for (Sessions), was a second rounder. Marc Gasol was a second rounder, Ginobli was a second rounder. It happens all the time.


Wait what???

I just showed you that the positions the Lakers were in, in the 1st round, we would have netted no one of any impact until the 2nd round. Your second part of your statement just proves why 1st rounders are worthless in the positions the Lakers are usually drafting.
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 18259
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby MusixFinest on Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:24 pm

tttppp wrote:
khmrP wrote:^^^Like I said bro, I have NEVER seen a team trade a 1st rd pick to dump an expiring before like we did with Sasha, so it is what it is, they doing whats best finacially for them. Whether that will turn around and bite us in the butt will remain to be seen, as of now these late picks that they're selling or shipping away hasn't turned into much, at least I dont think it has.


I think it is hurting us. Thats two first round picks we know they have burned so far. A first round pick usually gets you an impact player. Outside of the Laker big 3 or now 4 (i guess), the Lakers have plenty of room for good young players.

In 2008, I could understand giving away a pick because the roster was full. But there are plenty of openings now.


I'm of the opinion that the front office saw a better return for their picks in Ramon Sessions and Jordan Hill. You get an NBA ready PG (how many of those are out there in next year's draft?) and a big man that's been in the league a few years (big men typically are slower to develop). They probably couldn't guarantee doing as well in the draft so they seized on the opportunity. Plus they got to unload some dead weight. It was a win-win in their mind's eye.
MusixFinest

 
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2006 4:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: easyguy and 12 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.