Jordan Hill Discussion: Back for 2 yr/$18 mil

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:50 am

dj vitus wrote:Or maybe Hill is actually the next Marc Gasol. :man12:


Hill might be good enough to resign, but I doubt he could start for anyone.
tttppp

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

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:51 am

bruddahmanmatt wrote:
That was a lottery pick taken at #10. When we sold to New York in 2009 and New Jersey in 2011 we dealt away the 29th and 27th picks respectively. When all is said and done, we'll likely end up with the 5th or 6th best record this year which means we dealt away the 25th or 26th pick for Ramon Sessions. Perhaps you know of a way we could take what would have been the 26th pick in this year's draft, morph him into Ramon and send him back in time to enable us to have a shot at a title? And the Dallas pick you're whining about, the Mavs have the 13th best record in the NBA which means the 18th pick in the draft son...which means we wouldn't have even received the pick since it's top 20 protected.


Bynum was a project. Like YOU said, projects should be taken in the second round so you don't have to offer them guaranteed money.
tttppp

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

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:54 am

Doc Brown wrote:This is the same weak argument that was had back on pages 7-8 of this very thread. If anyone wants to use a nice quick and easy post to debunk any of tttppp's claims, feel free to snag my posts and use them to debunk the same argument he lost 5 pages back.


I just made one simple comment to one person's post, then you all jumped on me. If you don't like what I said, and don't care to discuss it, then don't say anything.
tttppp

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

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby bruddahmanmatt on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:55 am

tttppp wrote:
bruddahmanmatt wrote:
That was a lottery pick taken at #10. When we sold to New York in 2009 and New Jersey in 2011 we dealt away the 29th and 27th picks respectively. When all is said and done, we'll likely end up with the 5th or 6th best record this year which means we dealt away the 25th or 26th pick for Ramon Sessions. Perhaps you know of a way we could take what would have been the 26th pick in this year's draft, morph him into Ramon and send him back in time to enable us to have a shot at a title? And the Dallas pick you're whining about, the Mavs have the 13th best record in the NBA which means the 18th pick in the draft son...which means we wouldn't have even received the pick since it's top 20 protected.


Bynum was a project. Like YOU said, projects should be taken in the second round so you don't have to offer them guaranteed money.


Our team was a** at the time and we had motherF'ing Brian Grant on our payroll thanks to the Shaq trade, who the hell were we going to trade the #10 pick for? Get real. It made sense at the time to roll the dice on Drew. It's not like we had anything to lose in 2005. You with your apples and oranges again.

Rebuilding a team != adding complementary pieces.
P&G
bruddahmanmatt

 
Posts: 12220
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby Doc Brown on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:56 am

tttppp wrote:
Doc Brown wrote:This is the same weak argument that was had back on pages 7-8 of this very thread. If anyone wants to use a nice quick and easy post to debunk any of tttppp's claims, feel free to snag my posts and use them to debunk the same argument he lost 5 pages back.


I just made one simple comment to one person's post, then you all jumped on me. If you don't like what I said, and don't care to discuss it, then don't say anything.


I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 19457
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:59 am

bruddahmanmatt wrote:
tttppp wrote:
bruddahmanmatt wrote:
That was a lottery pick taken at #10. When we sold to New York in 2009 and New Jersey in 2011 we dealt away the 29th and 27th picks respectively. When all is said and done, we'll likely end up with the 5th or 6th best record this year which means we dealt away the 25th or 26th pick for Ramon Sessions. Perhaps you know of a way we could take what would have been the 26th pick in this year's draft, morph him into Ramon and send him back in time to enable us to have a shot at a title? And the Dallas pick you're whining about, the Mavs have the 13th best record in the NBA which means the 18th pick in the draft son...which means we wouldn't have even received the pick since it's top 20 protected.


Bynum was a project. Like YOU said, projects should be taken in the second round so you don't have to offer them guaranteed money.


Our team was a** at the time and we had motherF'ing Brian Grant on our payroll thanks to the Shaq trade, who the hell were we going to trade the #10 pick for? Get real. It made sense at the time to roll the dice on Drew. It's not like we had anything to lose in 2005. You with your apples and oranges again.

Rebuilding a team != adding complementary pieces.


The Lakers only have 4 contributing players to this years team. We could certainly use the pieces this year too. If this was 2008 when we were stacked, you'd certainly have a point. But we let those players go, so are now in need of new players.

I love how its ok for you to completely contradict yourself, but if I so much as make a spelling error, you'll be bashing me for it.
tttppp

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

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:01 pm

Doc Brown wrote:
tttppp wrote:
Doc Brown wrote:This is the same weak argument that was had back on pages 7-8 of this very thread. If anyone wants to use a nice quick and easy post to debunk any of tttppp's claims, feel free to snag my posts and use them to debunk the same argument he lost 5 pages back.


I just made one simple comment to one person's post, then you all jumped on me. If you don't like what I said, and don't care to discuss it, then don't say anything.


I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.


I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.
tttppp

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

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby Doc Brown on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:07 pm

tttppp wrote:
Doc Brown wrote:I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.


I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.


No you responded to everything, you responded to my argument by saying Crittenton was a good pick because it helped us get Pau Gasol and Memphis must have like something about him. So much so that he was traded to the Wizards.
Last edited by Doc Brown on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 19457
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby bruddahmanmatt on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:08 pm

tttppp wrote:The Lakers only have 4 contributing players to this years team. We could certainly use the pieces this year too. If this was 2008 when we were stacked, you'd certainly have a point. But we let those players go, so are now in need of new players.


Bynum, Gasol, Sessions, Artest and Barnes have all been steady contributors as of late, Bryant is a given come playoff time. That's six guys, plus while they're not all-star caliber material, McRoberts, Murphy, Goudelock and Ebanks have all done what's asked of them whenever their numbers are called. Just because our role players aren't dropping 20/10/5 every night it does NOT mean they aren't contributing.

tttppp wrote:I love how its ok for you to completely contradict yourself, but if I so much as make a spelling error, you'll be bashing me for it.


Because we're talking about our CURRENT TEAM, which is a team full of veterans getting paid big bucks who have a shot to contend and whether or not the extra costs associated with a rookie scale K for a VERY LATE 1st rounder are worth the extra coin. You went back and brought up Drew who was a LOTTERY PICK taken after a LOSING SEASON when the Lakers were in full rebuilding mode. Try again.

My argument pertained to teams with high payrolls who are looking to add small pieces because that's what we were talking about, rebuilding teams only entered the discussion when you got stuck and decided to reach back to 2005 in an attempt to dig yourself out of a hole.
P&G
bruddahmanmatt

 
Posts: 12220
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby bruddahmanmatt on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:12 pm

Doc Brown wrote:
tttppp wrote:
Doc Brown wrote:I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.


I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.


No you responded to everything, you responded to my argument by saying Crittenton was a good pick because it helped us get Pau Gasol and Memphis must have like something about him. So much so that he was traded to the Wizards.


Wow. When you look at some of the guys who were taken after Javaris...I mean I don't even know how anyone could try and claim that he was a good pick. Just...WOW.
P&G
bruddahmanmatt

 
Posts: 12220
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:22 pm

Doc Brown wrote:
tttppp wrote:
Doc Brown wrote:I don't like what you said because it's not true, I made the argument to why it was wrong a few pages back and you didn't care to respond. I discussed it, you came up with nothing in your defense when I put everything on the table and showed you why your argument is flawed.


I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.


No you responded to everything, you responded to my argument by saying Crittenton was a good pick because it helped us get Pau Gasol and Memphis must have like something about him. So much so that he was traded to the Wizards.


What, so you don't like the Pau Gasol trade?
tttppp

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

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby bruddahmanmatt on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:24 pm

tttppp wrote:
Doc Brown wrote:
tttppp wrote:I believe I responded to everyone who responded to me. I must have missed your post.


No you responded to everything, you responded to my argument by saying Crittenton was a good pick because it helped us get Pau Gasol and Memphis must have like something about him. So much so that he was traded to the Wizards.


What, so you don't like the Pau Gasol trade?


You were doing well...but then you went too far and now your troll status has been confirmed.
P&G
bruddahmanmatt

 
Posts: 12220
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby tttppp on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:29 pm

bruddahmanmatt wrote:
tttppp wrote:The Lakers only have 4 contributing players to this years team. We could certainly use the pieces this year too. If this was 2008 when we were stacked, you'd certainly have a point. But we let those players go, so are now in need of new players.


Bynum, Gasol, Sessions, Artest and Barnes have all been steady contributors as of late, Bryant is a given come playoff time. That's six guys, plus while they're not all-star caliber material, McRoberts, Murphy, Goudelock and Ebanks have all done what's asked of them whenever their numbers are called. Just because our role players aren't dropping 20/10/5 every night it does NOT mean they aren't contributing.

tttppp wrote:I love how its ok for you to completely contradict yourself, but if I so much as make a spelling error, you'll be bashing me for it.


Because we're talking about our CURRENT TEAM, which is a team full of veterans getting paid big bucks who have a shot to contend and whether or not the extra costs associated with a rookie scale K for a VERY LATE 1st rounder are worth the extra coin. You went back and brought up Drew who was a LOTTERY PICK taken after a LOSING SEASON when the Lakers were in full rebuilding mode. Try again.

My argument pertained to teams with high payrolls who are looking to add small pieces because that's what we were talking about, rebuilding teams only entered the discussion when you got stuck and decided to reach back to 2005 in an attempt to dig yourself out of a hole.


I've seen more from our role players since Kobe went out, but for the most part there's 4 main contributors. Even if you add Artest and Barnes to the list, there's plenty of room on this team for a couple of rookies. The only time you should be selling off your draft picks is if you are stocked or broke.
tttppp

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

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby bruddahmanmatt on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:40 pm

tttppp wrote:
bruddahmanmatt wrote:
tttppp wrote:The Lakers only have 4 contributing players to this years team. We could certainly use the pieces this year too. If this was 2008 when we were stacked, you'd certainly have a point. But we let those players go, so are now in need of new players.


Bynum, Gasol, Sessions, Artest and Barnes have all been steady contributors as of late, Bryant is a given come playoff time. That's six guys, plus while they're not all-star caliber material, McRoberts, Murphy, Goudelock and Ebanks have all done what's asked of them whenever their numbers are called. Just because our role players aren't dropping 20/10/5 every night it does NOT mean they aren't contributing.

tttppp wrote:I love how its ok for you to completely contradict yourself, but if I so much as make a spelling error, you'll be bashing me for it.


Because we're talking about our CURRENT TEAM, which is a team full of veterans getting paid big bucks who have a shot to contend and whether or not the extra costs associated with a rookie scale K for a VERY LATE 1st rounder are worth the extra coin. You went back and brought up Drew who was a LOTTERY PICK taken after a LOSING SEASON when the Lakers were in full rebuilding mode. Try again.

My argument pertained to teams with high payrolls who are looking to add small pieces because that's what we were talking about, rebuilding teams only entered the discussion when you got stuck and decided to reach back to 2005 in an attempt to dig yourself out of a hole.


I've seen more from our role players since Kobe went out, but for the most part there's 4 main contributors. Even if you add Artest and Barnes to the list, there's plenty of room on this team for a couple of rookies. The only time you should be selling off your draft picks is if you are stocked or broke.


Image
P&G
bruddahmanmatt

 
Posts: 12220
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:57 am

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby therealdeal on Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:51 pm

Free Hill! Why is he not in the game?

Maybe Brown saw what he tweeted and is sending him a message to keep his mouth shut?

edit: nevermind. :man10:
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby Weezy on Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:04 pm

Wow that was bad, even for garbage time, poor guy lol.
User avatar
Weezy
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 50881
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:14 am
Location: Anaheim, CA

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby Doc Brown on Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:08 pm

If you're going to tweet free JHill.....ummm well you might want to do something positive in the time you do get.
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 19457
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby therealdeal on Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:52 pm

To be fair, he was credited with two turnovers after two awkward passes from Morris. Although the block was his fault. :man10:
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby GoatMilk16 on Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:52 pm

!!!
GoatMilk16

 
Posts: 2118
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 1:54 am

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby lakersyunowin on Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:53 pm

monster game. thanks for stepping up and infusing the team with some damn heart/hustle/energy. that s***'s contagious and was really needed.
Last edited by lakersyunowin on Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the artist formerly known as fklukewalton, fksteveblake, and fkmikebrown
User avatar
lakersyunowin

 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:19 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby GoldHammish on Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:53 pm

How the eff did he never get any meaningful minutes before today?
User avatar
GoldHammish

 
Posts: 4971
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:46 pm
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby CaCHooKa Man on Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:54 pm

GoldHammish wrote:How the eff did he never get any meaningful minutes before today?


he was coming off a knee injury
User avatar
CaCHooKa Man
Human Highlight Reel
 
Posts: 20560
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 8:22 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby lakersyunowin on Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:54 pm

well shortly after he first arrived he had a mild knee sprain. whether that was a phantom injury or not, who knows. at least they know they can use him now. better late than never
the artist formerly known as fklukewalton, fksteveblake, and fkmikebrown
User avatar
lakersyunowin

 
Posts: 10416
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 7:19 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby therealdeal on Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:57 pm

It was awesome to see one of our bigs jumping after every rebound and challenging every shot (yes that's a shot at Bynum's effort of late).

He did a great job out there. I think his rebounding in the Overtime session was just absolutely fantastic and he kept the Lakers in the game.
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40357
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Postby Doc Brown on Sun Apr 22, 2012 3:58 pm

He is Murphy and Mcbobs all in one.....

He is athletic and plays defense, can hedge and recover on the pick and roll and did a great job of hustling and doing the little things for the team. (Mcbobs)

He can board and from his 14 points today can score a little bit as well. He was getting all the 50/50 boards and throwin his body around all game.(Murph)

Also showed he can finish around the rim, something neither Mcbobs or Murphy can do. (Not counting alley oop dunks for Mcbob)

Great game and he should be the 3rd big off the bench and get the majority of the backup minutes at both PF and C come playoff time.
Rule of Thumb at ClubLakers - Never encourage people to check your post history.
User avatar
Doc Brown

 
Posts: 19457
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 10:11 am
Location: Ohio

PreviousNext

Return to Lakers Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rooscooter and 18 guests

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