Jordan Hill Discussion: Cleared to play (66)

trodgers wrote:Good signing, good price.

Starting five? Check.
Backup C? Check.
Backup PF? Check.
Backup wing? Hmm...maybe.
Backup PG? I guess.

JGC, I don't see how this affects Howard, honestly.

Well, I wasn't suggesting that the signing of Hill affects Howard per se. What I was pondering was whether this signing of hill, is any indication of the FO's strategy regarding Howard. And for the record, I'm not saying it is THE evidence indicating their direction, but, just exhibit A perhaps.

Howard has, and can, played 38 minutes per game. Does it really make sense to sign a backup big to the tune of $4M per who will rarely make it on to the floor?

It's possible this signing is an indication of one of two things:

1) Their off the D12 train now, want to reduce Drew's minutes, and need to sign a capable backup player who can fill in minutes at center. A capable backup center is going to cost you so it's not something you invest in if your starting center is going to eat up all the playing time.

2) They're hedging their bets. PIck up Hill on a desirable contract. If we end up getting D12, Hill could be moved down the road as his contract is desirable. If D12 doesn't happen, you have the luxury of maximizing Drew's impact during the time he is on the court and keeping him fresh for the playoffs because you know have a capable backup big.

Let's say we had already acquired D12 for Drew. Do you think we still would have committed to Hill on this contract? Because I think if we already had D12, we would have just rostered Sacre or tried to find a vet min type player to back him up.

JGC wrote:

trodgers wrote:Good signing, good price.

Starting five? Check.
Backup C? Check.
Backup PF? Check.
Backup wing? Hmm...maybe.
Backup PG? I guess.

JGC, I don't see how this affects Howard, honestly.

Well, I wasn't suggesting that the signing of Hill affects Howard per se. What I was pondering was whether this signing of hill, is any indication of the FO's strategy regarding Howard. And for the record, I'm not saying it is THE evidence indicating their direction, but, just exhibit A perhaps.

Howard has, and can, played 38 minutes per game. Does it really make sense to sign a backup big to the tune of $4M per who will rarely make it on to the floor?

It's possible this signing is an indication of one of two things:

1) Their off the D12 train now, want to reduce Drew's minutes, and need to sign a capable backup player who can fill in minutes at center. A capable backup center is going to cost you so it's not something you invest in if your starting center is going to eat up all the playing time.

2) They're hedging their bets. PIck up Hill on a desirable contract. If we end up getting D12, Hill could be moved down the road as his contract is desirable. If D12 doesn't happen, you have the luxury of maximizing Drew's impact during the time he is on the court and keeping him fresh for the playoffs because you know have a capable backup big.

Let's say we had already acquired D12 for Drew. Do you think we still would have committed to Hill on this contract? Because I think if we already had D12, we would have just rostered Sacre or tried to find a vet min type player to back him up.

Yeah.. I don't think we would have spent the money to sign Jordan if we had to take on salary with Dwight.. Or maybe this is Mitch playing hardball.. The Magic were said to be one of the teams interested in Jordan Hill.. Perhaps he was one of the proposed pieces heading to the Magic, & Mitch signed him to let Hennigan know the ship is sailing..

As for the part about trading Hill later because his contract is a bargain.. Not gonna happen unless there is some major fallout.. We would look horrible trading a player that took less to stay with us & that's not the type of move we make

on the other hand, being traded to another team could give Hill the opportunity for more playing time and hence more money so he might be open to the right situation.

Anyway, I like this signing, this is Mitch telling Hennigan the Laker ship is sailing. Flip McBob for a backup swingman who can shoot and Mitch is essentially done.

Bynum/Hill/Sacre
Gasol/Jamison
MWP/Ebanks
Bryant/some swingman
Nash/Blake

11 right there including Sacre who's a big shot blocking body on a rookie contract; no way he's getting cut. Assuming Lakers carry 13, then that leaves Goudelock, Morris, Eyenga and DJO to fight for the remaining 2 spots. If I had to guess, I think Morris and DJO stick. Morris to be the 3rd PG and DJO because they spent money to get him. I don't think they go more than 13 as they will want some flexibility to take back extra players in trades. So Goudelock and Eyenga on the bubble.

Mitch recently told reporters that they would look to talk to Bynum about an extension sometime after they resign Jordan HIll.

So this signing along with the upcoming Jameson signing represents a symbolic shift.

revgen wrote:Mitch recently told reporters that they would look to talk to Bynum about an extension sometime after they resign Jordan HIll.

So this signing along with the upcoming Jameson signing represents a symbolic shift.

So this basically means we're moving on from Howard?

KeepBynum wrote:

revgen wrote:Mitch recently told reporters that they would look to talk to Bynum about an extension sometime after they resign Jordan HIll.

So this signing along with the upcoming Jameson signing represents a symbolic shift.

So this basically means we're moving on from Howard?

You can never say never, but the chance of Hill being involved in any Howard trade is showing signs of not happening.

Signing Hill and Jameson takes our roster space from 10 to 12. If we sign Ebanks' QO, it goes to 13. If we sign JO, it goes 14.

We're slowly but surely running out of roster spots to take on contracts in a possible trade deal.

Rooscooter wrote:You hit on the one part that gives me a little pause about getting a ball dominant guard like Nash..... How does Kobe mesh with him after being the entire focus of the offense for 16 years?.... It might take a month or two before they find the best way to co-exist.

That's why I think they would both benefit from playing whilst the other sits. They get to play the way they're used to, with the ball in their hands. You're more optimistic than I am, I think it will take all season for them to find a happy medium. In order for us to get the most value out of Steve Nash, he needs to have the ball in his hands. Kobe on the other hand can do dirt without handling the ball all the time, not to mention his defender is unlikely to leave him to double others. Hopefully he realizes that.

Rooscooter wrote:As for Nash's minutes.... I'd be surprised if he plays much more than 30 a game..... at least I hope not.... unfortunately that leaves too many minutes for Blake...

I still have my fingers crossed for West.

Excellent rebounding & hustle off the bench, glad he is back & we're not stuck with McScrub

Yep, I said it.

Apparently they're not going to be giving Jamison 20 something minutes a night and we're going to run a more traditional offense of having a backup PF and a backup C. That means less minutes all around. I wasn't expecting that at all, I was wrong.

therealdeal wrote:Yep, I said it.

Apparently they're not going to be giving Jamison 20 something minutes a night and we're going to run a more traditional offense of having a backup PF and a backup C. That means less minutes all around. I wasn't expecting that at all, I was wrong.

But I'm glad they are going that direction though. I remember being so furious every game when I had to see Drew run 12 minute stretches as well as Kobe. Now it's 7-8 minute stretches, get a nice break, 7-8 minute stretch, rinse and repeat.

Having our bigs having something left in the tank in the 2nd half and especially the 4th quarter is going to be huge.

Now if they can figure that out with Kobe and get a nice backup for him so he doesn't have to do that either, with Nash running things in the 4th, with an energized Kobe/Bynum, I like our odds of closing out games and getting buckets a lot more than last year.

Great re-signing of someone who proved their worth and not letting him go like Brown.

Doc Brown wrote:

therealdeal wrote:Yep, I said it.

Apparently they're not going to be giving Jamison 20 something minutes a night and we're going to run a more traditional offense of having a backup PF and a backup C. That means less minutes all around. I wasn't expecting that at all, I was wrong.

But I'm glad they are going that direction though. I remember being so furious every game when I had to see Drew run 12 minute stretches as well as Kobe. Now it's 7-8 minute stretches, get a nice break, 7-8 minute stretch, rinse and repeat.

Having our bigs having something left in the tank in the 2nd half and especially the 4th quarter is going to be huge.

Now if they can figure that out with Kobe and get a nice backup for him so he doesn't have to do that either, with Nash running things in the 4th, with an energized Kobe/Bynum, I like our odds of closing out games and getting buckets a lot more than last year.

I suppose i ageee with keeping guys fresh. It was EXTREMELY evident late in games that our Big 3 were tired and couldn't keep up. Having Hill and Jamison will give them the opportunity to give both Bynum and Gasol rests.

However, i was looking forward to having Jamison come in and sliding Pau to C. I think that would really help Pau come back to the level of performance we're going to need. I think we'll still see that, but not as often and that may hurt his resurgence just a bit.

Still a nice signing though. Any time you can have a guy who turns down more money to play here, you have a guy who cares more about winning and being a Laker than anything else. And that's special.

By the way we've got three guys like that right now.

He needs to work on and develop some sort of a mid-range game. Hope he is working hard at it. That, and his help defense without fouling. Though he is faster to react and help than Drew, he needs to stay vertical and work on taking charges.

Doc Brown wrote:

therealdeal wrote:Yep, I said it.

Apparently they're not going to be giving Jamison 20 something minutes a night and we're going to run a more traditional offense of having a backup PF and a backup C. That means less minutes all around. I wasn't expecting that at all, I was wrong.

But I'm glad they are going that direction though. I remember being so furious every game when I had to see Drew run 12 minute stretches as well as Kobe. Now it's 7-8 minute stretches, get a nice break, 7-8 minute stretch, rinse and repeat.

Having our bigs having something left in the tank in the 2nd half and especially the 4th quarter is going to be huge.

Now if they can figure that out with Kobe and get a nice backup for him so he doesn't have to do that either, with Nash running things in the 4th, with an energized Kobe/Bynum, I like our odds of closing out games and getting buckets a lot more than last year.

I'm very hopeful this is the plan.. Playing Kobe, Bynum, Pau, Nash into the dirt isn't going to get us anywhere.. Our starters are good enough that by that 7 minute mark we should have a good lead against most anyone.. Having them be able to get rest while we stay in the game is key.. If this is the route we're going, Mitch has to have something planned for PG & the wings.. If we have Blake/Glock/Ebanks out there, even with 2 solid bigs like Jamison & Hill, those leads won't last

After looking at the salary chart at hoopsworld it doesn't look so bad as I thought. He's being paid 3.6 million this season, not 4 million. He earns 4 million in 2013-2014, but at least J-Mac will be gone then, so we won't be paying over 7 million dollars for essentially 2 hustle players who play the same position.

^ I honestly think Josh is gone this season if and when Mitch finds the right offer. 3 million expiring for a young guy with talent and athleticism. No way we keep him here when I"m sure there's takers that'll give us a PG/SG that we desperately need.

therealdeal wrote:^ I honestly think Josh is gone this season if and when Mitch finds the right offer. 3 million expiring for a young guy with talent and athleticism. No way we keep him here when I"m sure there's takers that'll give us a PG/SG that we desperately need.

If we could somehow get Rush for McScrub that'd be awesome.

therealdeal wrote:^ I honestly think Josh is gone this season if and when Mitch finds the right offer. 3 million expiring for a young guy with talent and athleticism. No way we keep him here when I"m sure there's takers that'll give us a PG/SG that we desperately need.

As much as I love Rush, I think our best bet would be getting the best backup PG or combo guard we can from a team willing to take on Blake with McBob..

^ sounds like Calderon to me. Who's TOR playing at PG/bu PG now, could Blake fit?
And can McRib garner any 4th big mins for them?

Phil XI wrote:^ sounds like Calderon to me. Who's TOR playing at PG/bu PG now, could Blake fit?
And can McRib garner any 4th big mins for them?

They have both Calderon and Lowry.

Glad to hear it.

Hill definitely earned it.

Phil XI wrote:^ sounds like Calderon to me. Who's TOR playing at PG/bu PG now, could Blake fit?
And can McRib garner any 4th big mins for them?

I was talking about more of a salary dump.. Get a guard at or below McRoberts salary in return & get rid of Blake's contract.. I'm sure getting a team with cap space to take that package without a 1st is a tall order though..

therealdeal wrote:^ I honestly think Josh is gone this season if and when Mitch finds the right offer. 3 million expiring for a young guy with talent and athleticism. No way we keep him here when I"m sure there's takers that'll give us a PG/SG that we desperately need.

I would love that myself, but, I thought I read somewhere payroll is a monstrous $120M now. If that is true, I am almost afraid that we are all but done.

But if we do trade, I think the magic contract length of players we would consider is 2 years or 3 years with last year as a team option. (Outside of super stars where we are done).

JGC wrote:(Outside of super stars where we are done).

Yup...we will rely on Nash to get us what we didn't have last season--- three point shooting and playmaking