Jordan Hill Discussion: Cleared to play (66)

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 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 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 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.

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 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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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 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?

According to Mike Brown Jordan Hill wont get much playing time

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.

^^^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.

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.

Mike brown is just saying that to be PC. If mcroberts and Murphy keep playing the way they are hill will get a shot

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...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

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.