Jordan Hill Discussion: Cleared to play (66)

karacha · by **karacha** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:33 pm

Vasashi17 wrote:Everybody is telling me to put my emotions to the side, but I'm thinking completely rationally here.

We'll have to agree to disagree, because most of us are happy with the moves, and think that Fisher is done. He was a liability on he court. He was the worst starting PG in the league, easily.

I don't think you're rational at all, as long as you have to use terms like "I am proud" and "I am ashamed". That's not rational thinking. Looking at what Fish did for us lately is. Looking at how Odom plays and contributes now is also rational. Both are horrible.

I, on the other hand, am as rational as one can be. Even my wife said so today. :man10:

In any case, I think we should stop now, because this is the Jordan Hill Discussion Thread. (If anything -- all this should be in the Deadline Moves thread.)

brickshooter · by **brickshooter** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:40 pm

Lakers should have talk to Fish before panicking and sending him to Houston.

Fish just agreed to a buyout with Houston to surrender his next year's salary.

Maybe it's all for the best.

We have bikini models & bartenders instead of professional scouts.

live and die in LA · by **live and die in LA** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:46 pm

Vasashi17 wrote:J...I respectfully disagree. Look at the money that management saved with the LO + Fish for Hill + TPE.

Looking at recent history, that TPE will not be used, so that trade stands as is. Terrible deal basketball wise...but in terms of salary shaving, management hit a homerun wouldn't you say?

Out of pure curiosity, would you feel differently about Fisher+Dallas 1st for Beasley? The Lakers were intent on making this move instead, The T-Wolves backing out 7 minutes before the deadline put the Lakers in a bad position. That move seemed more basketball oriented.

Vasashi17 · by **Vasashi17** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:49 pm

live and die in LA wrote:
Vasashi17 wrote:J...I respectfully disagree. Look at the money that management saved with the LO + Fish for Hill + TPE.

Looking at recent history, that TPE will not be used, so that trade stands as is. Terrible deal basketball wise...but in terms of salary shaving, management hit a homerun wouldn't you say?

Out of pure curiosity, would you feel differently about Fisher+Dallas 1st for Beasley? The Lakers were intent on making this move instead, The T-Wolves backing out 7 minutes before the deadline put the Lakers in a bad position. That move seemed more basketball oriented.

Yep, a much better bball deal for sure. Plus Beasley is a far better trade asset than Hill.

That being said, if the deal fell through, then the popular cliche of a good deal is not always the one that is made kicks in. You hang onto Fish and the pick and head to the summer with better assets than Hill.

But again, Beas was on our radar way before 7 minutes till the deadline...Beasley could've been ours with the TPE and 1st...but why wasn't that offered? You $hould know by now.

brickshooter · by **brickshooter** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:50 pm

Beasly deal = basketball.
Houston deal = P-A-N-I-C.

tttppp · by **tttppp** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:02 pm

Doc Brown wrote:
tttppp wrote:Thats 7 good picks, to 11 bad picks. Not quite 50% like I guessed, but a pretty decent return. If you look at just first round: Bynum, Farmar, Critteron vs. Douglas. Thats 3 good picks vs one bad pick. So there's a 75% chance you get a good player out of the first round. Why would you want to throw away a first round pick? There's a 75% chance you get an impact player.

Douglas we didn't draft, we drafted for New York Knicks. Never was our pick. Crittenton was a scrub, how you group him with Farmar and Bynum is beyond me. Ohh yeah you did it to prove your point about getting a good player in the 1st round. The fact that you put Critter as a good pick and Douglas as a bad one is just flat out wrong.

You seriously need to grasp the concept here, this is the last time I will say it, because you are blatantly ignoring my post. There is not a 75% chance we get an impact player. We got Bynum because we sucked and got a good pick. We are routinely in the 27-30 range in the 1st round. I've already went through the draft the last 3-4 years and pointed out the players that we could have gotten in our position.

How can you say their our impact players in the 1st round where we are at? All the good players I mentioned came in the 2nd round. We could have DONE NO BETTER IN THE 1ST ROUND GIVEN OUR POSITION IN THE DRAFT. There's not a 75% chance we get an impact player, that is just laughable. Take Douglas, Critter and Bynum out because we didn't draft Douglas for us, Critter was a bonafide scrub, Bynum was a pick we got because we sucked and have never been in that position to draft a player that high since then. So that leaves Farmar since 2005. You're logic on that is so flawed it's ridiculous.

Please go through and tell me in the last 6 years who the Lakers could have gotten in the 1st round, given their draft position in that 1st round that would have been an impact player. Please go ahead. You will find all second rounders. Please give me the names and not subjective bullcrap. I bet you can't.

To save yourself the time....don't list players that were taken ahead of the Lakers draft position because there is no way we could have gotten those players.

Critteron played well while he was here, watch the games. Also, he helped get us Gasol as well. So there is something Memphis liked in Critteron.

tttppp · by **tttppp** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:05 pm

karacha wrote:Crit and Ebanks are good picks? What exactly are those guys doing right now?

Also, Glock? He's a rookie. We don't have a clue if he's going to be productive or not.

Basically, on that list, there are 4 "good" picks: Bynum, Turiaf, Gasol and Farmar. And only two of those are really good players: Bynum (lottery pick) and Gasol (2nd round pick).

So, how many "good" non-lottery players did we get in the first round again? Farmar. I guess he qualifies as good these days.

I already addressed Crit. I believe Ebanks should be starting. He can shoot and is capable of playing great defense. He's just not getting the minutes yet. He's a steal for a second round pick.

Rooscooter · by **Rooscooter** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:07 pm

Vasashi17 wrote:
live and die in LA wrote:
Vasashi17 wrote:J...I respectfully disagree. Look at the money that management saved with the LO + Fish for Hill + TPE.

Looking at recent history, that TPE will not be used, so that trade stands as is. Terrible deal basketball wise...but in terms of salary shaving, management hit a homerun wouldn't you say?

Out of pure curiosity, would you feel differently about Fisher+Dallas 1st for Beasley? The Lakers were intent on making this move instead, The T-Wolves backing out 7 minutes before the deadline put the Lakers in a bad position. That move seemed more basketball oriented.

Yep, a much better bball deal for sure. Plus Beasley is a far better trade asset than Hill.

That being said, if the deal fell through, then the popular cliche of a good deal is not always the one that is made kicks in. You hang onto Fish and the pick and head to the summer with better assets than Hill.

But again, Beas was on our radar way before 7 minutes till the deadline...Beasley could've been ours with the TPE and 1st...but why wasn't that offered? You $hould know by now.

Yes..... and now we find out that Fisher has forgone his 3.5 million that was the hang up in the Minn deal..... Why didn't we approach Fisher before the trade and discuss this with him...... He would have told them that he wanted to go to a contender and we could have relayed that on to Minn..... deal done.....

Our front office seems to have a much bigger divide between the players and ownership than just about any in the league...... The only reason I can find for it is because they are going to do things the players won't like one bit....... Interesting times to be a Laker fan....... I've been one for 40 years and I've never seen a time when they are not working with every fiber to put a championship team on the floor..... There were time periods where they made mistakes but they were always moving in that direction..... now it seems that they want the fan base to believe that but the moves they are making don't support it any longer........

Doc Brown · by **Doc Brown** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:07 pm

tttppp wrote:
Doc Brown wrote:
tttppp wrote:Thats 7 good picks, to 11 bad picks. Not quite 50% like I guessed, but a pretty decent return. If you look at just first round: Bynum, Farmar, Critteron vs. Douglas. Thats 3 good picks vs one bad pick. So there's a 75% chance you get a good player out of the first round. Why would you want to throw away a first round pick? There's a 75% chance you get an impact player.

Douglas we didn't draft, we drafted for New York Knicks. Never was our pick. Crittenton was a scrub, how you group him with Farmar and Bynum is beyond me. Ohh yeah you did it to prove your point about getting a good player in the 1st round. The fact that you put Critter as a good pick and Douglas as a bad one is just flat out wrong.

You seriously need to grasp the concept here, this is the last time I will say it, because you are blatantly ignoring my post. There is not a 75% chance we get an impact player. We got Bynum because we sucked and got a good pick. We are routinely in the 27-30 range in the 1st round. I've already went through the draft the last 3-4 years and pointed out the players that we could have gotten in our position.

How can you say their our impact players in the 1st round where we are at? All the good players I mentioned came in the 2nd round. We could have DONE NO BETTER IN THE 1ST ROUND GIVEN OUR POSITION IN THE DRAFT. There's not a 75% chance we get an impact player, that is just laughable. Take Douglas, Critter and Bynum out because we didn't draft Douglas for us, Critter was a bonafide scrub, Bynum was a pick we got because we sucked and have never been in that position to draft a player that high since then. So that leaves Farmar since 2005. You're logic on that is so flawed it's ridiculous.

Please go through and tell me in the last 6 years who the Lakers could have gotten in the 1st round, given their draft position in that 1st round that would have been an impact player. Please go ahead. You will find all second rounders. Please give me the names and not subjective bullcrap. I bet you can't.

To save yourself the time....don't list players that were taken ahead of the Lakers draft position because there is no way we could have gotten those players.

Critteron played well while he was here, watch the games. Also, he helped get us Gasol as well. So there is something Memphis liked in Critteron.

LOL. Don't even respond to my post and than you come lay that bullcrap down. :man10:

Larry14r · by **Larry14r** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:15 pm

Vasashi17 wrote:
live and die in LA wrote:
Vasashi17 wrote:J...I respectfully disagree. Look at the money that management saved with the LO + Fish for Hill + TPE.

Looking at recent history, that TPE will not be used, so that trade stands as is. Terrible deal basketball wise...but in terms of salary shaving, management hit a homerun wouldn't you say?

Out of pure curiosity, would you feel differently about Fisher+Dallas 1st for Beasley? The Lakers were intent on making this move instead, The T-Wolves backing out 7 minutes before the deadline put the Lakers in a bad position. That move seemed more basketball oriented.

Yep, a much better bball deal for sure. Plus Beasley is a far better trade asset than Hill.

That being said, if the deal fell through, then the popular cliche of a good deal is not always the one that is made kicks in. You hang onto Fish and the pick and head to the summer with better assets than Hill.

But again, Beas was on our radar way before 7 minutes till the deadline...Beasley could've been ours with the TPE and 1st...but why wasn't that offered? You $hould know by now.

That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

Rooscooter · by **Rooscooter** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:17 pm

Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

karacha · by **karacha** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:17 pm

tttppp wrote:I already addressed Crit. I believe Ebanks should be starting. He can shoot and is capable of playing great defense. He's just not getting the minutes yet. He's a steal for a second round pick.

Then you know something that basketball experts don't. Which is possible, if unlikely.

As for the last few posts, I will trust Mitch until it is clear that we ended up as a bottom feeder team.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen; we'll be fine. We'll contend this year, and I'm sure Mitch does have a plan for the near future. I refuse to believe that an average forum user can see things that Mitch, who is a good professional GM can't.

karacha · by **karacha** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:19 pm

Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

You don't want to talk like this to anyone, especially if that person is a moderator. Consider this an official warning.

Larry14r · by **Larry14r** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:20 pm

karacha wrote:
Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

You don't want to talk like this to anyone, especially a moderator. Consider this an official warning.

Rooscooter wrote:
Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

Well it's not my fault that I hate whiners.

Larry14r · by **Larry14r** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:20 pm

karacha wrote:
Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

You don't want to talk like this to anyone, especially if that person is a moderator. Consider this an official warning.

Sorry about that.

Vasashi17 · by **Vasashi17** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:58 pm

Larry14r wrote:
karacha wrote:
Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

You don't want to talk like this to anyone, especially a moderator. Consider this an official warning.
Rooscooter wrote:
Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

Well it's not my fault that I hate whiners.

Wait...so in this case, whining about a whiner is hating oneself, right? :man12:

Or maybe it was a typo and you just hate winners, which is why there's so much hate for Fish.

Either way, Jordan Hill ain't getting much love in his own thread, so I'll stop the derailment with my wiser comments and bow out.

PS: Unlike yours, there's no possibility of a typo on my end, cause I got auto-correct. :man1:

tttppp · by **tttppp** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:54 pm

karacha wrote:
tttppp wrote:I already addressed Crit. I believe Ebanks should be starting. He can shoot and is capable of playing great defense. He's just not getting the minutes yet. He's a steal for a second round pick.

Then you know something that basketball experts don't. Which is possible, if unlikely.

As for the last few posts, I will trust Mitch until it is clear that we ended up as a bottom feeder team.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen; we'll be fine. We'll contend this year, and I'm sure Mitch does have a plan for the near future. I refuse to believe that an average forum user can see things that Mitch, who is a good professional GM can't.

You know what, about 6 years ago I was the only one on here claiming the Lakers were building a dynasty. I came pretty close on my prediction. In 2007, I predicted Durant would be a superstar and Oden would be a bust. I turned out to be right, and all the experts were wrong. When Mike Brown was hired, I predicted this season would be incredible chaotic, and would look like Mike Brown doesn't know what he is doing. I came pretty close on that prediction.

So maybe I should be running the Lakers. One thing is for sure, if I was running the Lakers, the product on the floor would be my number 1 priority.

Frank Dux · by **Frank Dux** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:41 pm

Larry14r wrote:
karacha wrote:
Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

You don't want to talk like this to anyone, especially a moderator. Consider this an official warning.
Rooscooter wrote:
Larry14r wrote:That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

Well it's not my fault that I hate whiners.

Says the whiner. Calm down.

Scnottaken · by **Scnottaken** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:49 pm

So now that Fish's agreed to a buyout, any chance we'll see this guy on the floor? Is he better/worse than our backups?

therealdeal · by **therealdeal** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 10:53 pm

Scnottaken wrote:So now that Fish's agreed to a buyout, any chance we'll see this guy on the floor? Is he better/worse than our backups?

Brown indicated somewhere that he won't see much time. He's different than our backups. More like McRoberts than Murphy.

He's an athlete, he likes to rebound and he's a worker. He tries defensively, but he's not quite thick enough to make the impact that others can. His athleticism translates into a shot blocker, although he's not great at it.

I'd like to see him get some minutes, I just don't think he will.

Larry14r · by **Larry14r** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:00 pm

Well I'm sorry about that, but I'm not going to be playing nice with anyone, anymore because I'm at that point because I just can't take the whining anymore.

khmrP · by **khmrP** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:34 pm

Larry14r wrote:
Vasashi17 wrote:
But again, Beas was on our radar way before 7 minutes till the deadline...Beasley could've been ours with the TPE and 1st...but why wasn't that offered? You $hould know by now.

That's because the Wolves killed the deal turd for brains. Seriously do us all a favor and shut the hell up.

Larry....I think Vasa is referring to the rumor that Minn offered Beas for the 1st/tpe weeks ago but mgmt. declined because they didn't want anymore added salary NOT the deadline deal that feel through with minn/por. As for the deadline team that idiot Minn owner is dumb as F@#K, rumor were that he didn't want to take a chance that Fish would opt in next season, well Fish just gave up his entire 2012-2013 option to get out of Hou, I'm pretty dam sure he would've done exact same thing if he had gotten traded to Minn. So I want to send a big middle finger to Glen Taylor of the Twolves

FabFourLakers · by **FabFourLakers** on Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:56 pm

Glenn Taylor is an idiot....Fisher buyout would have for sure happened in Minny esp since he'd be the 3rd PG behind Ridnour and Barea...esp since Houston is a way more desirable location and they actually might have needed his services right now since Dragic is starting and Lowry is out a couple more weeks...and they STILL agreed to a buyout. How much was this buyout worth anyways?

People must not have seen Jordan Hill play...but the dude is easily better than both McRob and Murphy....he can play pick and roll with ramon sessions...dude can finish at the rim. He just doesn't see enough minutes. When he DOES get PT, he gets a double double pretty easily. Dunno why ppl are sleeping on him. I sure hope Mike Brown doesn't.

therealdeal · by **therealdeal** on Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:13 am

FabFourLakers wrote:
People must not have seen Jordan Hill play...but the dude is easily better than both McRob and Murphy....he can play pick and roll with ramon sessions...dude can finish at the rim. He just doesn't see enough minutes. When he DOES get PT, he gets a double double pretty easily. Dunno why ppl are sleeping on him. I sure hope Mike Brown doesn't.

Double doubles for the Rockets 2011-2012:

Dec 31: 11/15 in 28:23
Jan 10: 12/12 in 18:12
Jan 27: 10/10 in 18:37
Jan 28: 14/11 in 22:29

He had 15 games with over 15 minutes of play so that's 4/15 or 27%

2010-2011:

Nov 22: 14/10 in 21:54
Jan 17: 10/10 in 23:22

He played over 15 in 40+ games.

Not saying he can't be productive, but it's not a given.

TIME · by **TIME** on Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:08 am

Larry14r wrote:Well I'm sorry about that, but I'm not going to be playing nice with anyone, anymore because I'm at that point because I just can't take the whining anymore.

Your choice. Don't play nice and the staff won't either.

Jordan Hill Discussion: Cleared to play (66)

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Re: Jordan Hill Discussion Thread

Who is online