PDA

View Full Version : George Hill was worth every bit of 8 mil



BlueCollarColts
11-28-2012, 04:44 PM
13.8 ppg and 5.3 apg, may not sound like great numbers but the Pacers made the right move signing him for that amount of money. Hill has made 2 game winning shots this season last night and @ Toronto in the opener, even last season Hill was ranked top 10 in the NBA in his productions in the final 2 minutes, the dude is clutch. I know some people say we over payed for him but I disagree, Hill was worth every bit of it. We have two players we can go to for buckets when we need them and that is George Hill and David West.

Ace E.Anderson
11-28-2012, 05:01 PM
that 13.8 will easily rise to about 15ppg once he starts shooting around his normal %'s.

Goyle
11-28-2012, 05:05 PM
Right on! I thought this was the worst move we made this offseason, but he proved me wrong pretty quickly.

LoneGranger33
11-28-2012, 05:24 PM
The counter-argument would be that if George Hill played better before the final two minutes of the game, we wouldn't have needed the heroics. I mean, the guy spotted the Lakers at least four points on easy fast breaks last night, and in the first half he only managed three points against All-NBA defenders Darius Morris and Chris Duhon. His shooting has been atrocious all season and his passing remains sub-par for a starting point guard. In a season where we desperately need consistency from our players (and we're certainly not getting it from Hibbert and George), Hill hasn't delivered. You could argue that he's been the second best player on the team thus far, but the team is only 7-8.

He hasn't shied away from the big moments, and he's hit more game-winners than I can remember, but let's judge the guy on the entirety of his work - every game, every minute. The front office already gave him $40 million based on a ten-game run. They overpaid because they remembered the good and forgot the bad. Let us not make the same mistake.

MillerTime
11-28-2012, 05:36 PM
I knew it was always a great move. Hill is a great all around player. Hes a great defender and has a lot of playoff experience (coming from SA).

Midcoasted
11-28-2012, 05:50 PM
The counter-argument would be that if George Hill played better before the final two minutes of the game, we wouldn't have needed the heroics. I mean, the guy spotted the Lakers at least four points on easy fast breaks last night, and in the first half he only managed three points against All-NBA defenders Darius Morris and Chris Duhon. His shooting has been atrocious all season and his passing remains sub-par for a starting point guard. In a season where we desperately need consistency from our players (and we're certainly not getting it from Hibbert and George), Hill hasn't delivered. You could argue that he's been the second best player on the team thus far, but the team is only 7-8.

He hasn't shied away from the big moments, and he's hit more game-winners than I can remember, but let's judge the guy on the entirety of his work - every game, every minute. The front office already gave him $40 million based on a ten-game run. They overpaid because they remembered the good and forgot the bad. Let us not make the same mistake.

I have posted that he was not worth near that much. I think I was probably wrong. 8 million is a good deal for him. Him Lance and George fit really well. Obviously Lance will be the odd man out when Granger returns, but I'm afraid that will hurt us. I think Lance starting at point is our best option going forward, simply because his defense, ball, handling and court vision are what we need at the point, not Hill's scoring. I think George Hill is better suited to be a 6th man, because he would be arguable the best one in the league. For some reason I believe that could solve our woes against Miami and other top teams. Obviously we need Hill now more than ever, I just think Lance has a higher ceiling he seems to be climbing towards fast at the point guard position.

Sure he has been playing off the ball a lot, but good things seem to happen when he gets the ball in his hands. I understand this may be by design to
ease him into the roll, but eventually we need to put the ball in his hands and let him go to work becuase he is out best creator for himself and others we've got. That includes Granger and Hill. He will make mistakes sure, but Hill and George have made their fair share and when any of the three are driving into traffic, I trust Lance's handles the most. I also trust his ability to pass into the post more than any other player for some reason. If his double clutch shots while driving to basket keep dropping at an increasing consitency, he may become our best all around player.

Free Lance. He is better at creating for Hill, than Hill is for creating for him. We may see Hill's woeful shooting percentages increase to the level they were when Collison was still a big part of our offense. I think Hill's main problem this year is he is being asked to have the ball in his hands more than at any point in his career so far. They have Lance leashed so he doesn't have the chance to get Hill open looks. But Lance does get Hill good looks a lot considering he may not touch the ball at all on many possesssions.

AesopRockOn
11-28-2012, 05:54 PM
It's pretty silly to say whether he's worth all, some, or none of the new contract 15 games in. Like Joey Crawford after calling a blocking foul, give it some time to breathe first.

Dece
11-28-2012, 06:10 PM
It really doesn't matter how well or not he performs, he could put up 20/10/10 and it still wouldn't mean 5/40 was a good contract if you could have signed him for less. Fact is there was no competition, he could have very likely been had for less, the market for players considered at or near his level dropped out, and we overpaid, regardless of his production.

Shade
11-28-2012, 06:26 PM
Hill's a good player, but he's still not a PG, and that will be exploited again in the playoffs.

beast23
11-28-2012, 06:39 PM
It really doesn't matter how well or not he performs, he could put up 20/10/10 and it still wouldn't mean 5/40 was a good contract if you could have signed him for less. Fact is there was no competition, he could have very likely been had for less, the market for players considered at or near his level dropped out, and we overpaid, regardless of his production.
Wait a minute. Comping him to other players is only half of what is involved in retaining or acquiring a player. The other half of the matter, really a more important consideration, is whether there are other teams that had the cap space to pay him as much as we did.

I don't recall whether other teams still had that kind of money or not. I do agree with you that a good deal for any team is one in which you don't have to pay substantially more than the minimum amount that it actually takes to sign a player.

I would have hoped we could have gotten Hill for 5.5M - 6M per year. It didn't happen. But I really cannot say with certainty why. Could we have lost him if we had only been willing to pay that amount?

It seems reasonable that to lessen the risk in losing him that we were required to pay an amount more than the MLE. That much I feel like I know. But how much more than the MLE, who knows?

3rdStrike
11-28-2012, 06:40 PM
Hill's a good player, but he's still not a PG, and that will be exploited again in the playoffs.

He is a good player and he is a point guard, at least by my criteria. He doesn't have creativity or court vision, but he is still a floor general. He runs Vogel's plays all the time, much to my dismay, and I really wish he would take the ball to the basket more since his floater is his best shot (especially when he's struggling with his outside shooting).

Then again, I think all the Pacers other than Hansbrough and West should drive the ball inside more.

BlueCollarColts
11-28-2012, 06:44 PM
It really doesn't matter how well or not he performs, he could put up 20/10/10 and it still wouldn't mean 5/40 was a good contract if you could have signed him for less. Fact is there was no competition, he could have very likely been had for less, the market for players considered at or near his level dropped out, and we overpaid, regardless of his production.
fact is you don't know if there was competition for him, you are assuming that there was no competition for him, the Rockets signed Omer Asik for over 8 mil a year, you can't tell me that you know for sure no team offered Hill, because you don't know.

Dece
11-28-2012, 06:49 PM
Omer Asik is significantly more valuable than George Hill. I do know no team had the cap space to make GH that kind of offer. I do know no team did offer it because we signed an RFA in such a rush, for no apparent reason, instead of waiting for him to get an offer. Do you really think someone out there was waiting around for the end of the RFA time period to throw GH a 10M a year deal? No? Neither do I nor any other reasonable person on Earth does either.

rexnom
11-28-2012, 07:07 PM
One concern that we prevented was a poison pill contract. If we had a feeling that that was looming, locking him up early was brilliant. This is not so far fetched, seeing what happened to Jeremy Lin. If Hill got a Lin offer, we probably would have had to let him go. I bet the Bulls/Knicks wish they wold have done what we did with Hill.

Doddage
11-28-2012, 07:14 PM
I expect this opinion to change whenever Hill has a bad game.

Cubs231721
11-28-2012, 09:05 PM
One concern that we prevented was a poison pill contract. If we had a feeling that that was looming, locking him up early was brilliant. This is not so far fetched, seeing what happened to Jeremy Lin. If Hill got a Lin offer, we probably would have had to let him go. I bet the Bulls/Knicks wish they wold have done what we did with Hill.

The Bulls/Knicks did not have full Bird rights on Asik/Lin. The poison pill is actually the NBA trying to help teams in the Bulls and Knicks situation retain their players. Before, if Houston had offered a deal with that amount of money to Lin/Asik, the Bulls and Knicks would have been prohibited from matching. Now they can match but since they don't have full Bird rights, they would have had to match it by only paying 5 million the first two years and then a huge jump up, which is where the poison pill was. It's just a way for teams over the cap to be able to keep their players and still satisfy cap rules.

The Pacers did have full Bird rights on Hill. So there was zero potential for a poison pill contract and the Pacers could have matched whatever contract Hill got on the market. The Pacers must have either wanted the certainty of that 5th year, or been so close on money that they couldn't take the risk of Hill going onto the market even if he very likely would have signed for less.

CJ Jones
11-28-2012, 09:10 PM
He hasn't been nearly as good as I'd like defensively. I think he can play much better there. His shooting has been off, but I can let that slide considering he's playing a roll he's not yet comfortable with and he's running Frank's terrible offense. Despite his struggles I think he's earned his money with his clutch play (thanks again Green), and leadership. He's only going to get better.

rock747
11-28-2012, 09:15 PM
Omer Asik is significantly more valuable than George Hill. I do know no team had the cap space to make GH that kind of offer. I do know no team did offer it because we signed an RFA in such a rush, for no apparent reason, instead of waiting for him to get an offer. Do you really think someone out there was waiting around for the end of the RFA time period to throw GH a 10M a year deal? No? Neither do I nor any other reasonable person on Earth does either.

You have to throw out the fact that trading away Kawhi Leonard for a one year rental would be a significant loss... I am sure the weighed on the psyche of pacer's management.

2minutes twoa
11-28-2012, 09:24 PM
He hasn't been nearly as good as I'd like defensively. I think he can play much better there. His shooting has been off, but I can let that slide considering he's playing a roll he's not yet comfortable with and he's running Frank's terrible offense. Despite his struggles I think he's earned his money with his clutch play (thanks again Green), and leadership. He's only going to get better.

I hate the perception that he has been a bad defender just because our pick and roll defense is terrible. People ripped him for being schooled by Tony Parker, but it wasn't Parker breaking him down one on one. I think Hill is a very solid defender.

Dece
11-28-2012, 09:24 PM
Google sunk cost fallacy for a more thorough explanation, but there's a famous poker quote about throwing good chips after bad... the moves you currently make can't alter the past, so using the past to justify bad moves in the present is wrong. Kawhi Leonard is spilled milk. He's irrelevant to contract negotiations.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 09:29 PM
The counter-argument would be that if George Hill played better before the final two minutes of the game, we wouldn't have needed the heroics. I mean, the guy spotted the Lakers at least four points on easy fast breaks last night, and in the first half he only managed three points against All-NBA defenders Darius Morris and Chris Duhon. His shooting has been atrocious all season and his passing remains sub-par for a starting point guard. In a season where we desperately need consistency from our players (and we're certainly not getting it from Hibbert and George), Hill hasn't delivered. You could argue that he's been the second best player on the team thus far, but the team is only 7-8.

He hasn't shied away from the big moments, and he's hit more game-winners than I can remember, but let's judge the guy on the entirety of his work - every game, every minute. The front office already gave him $40 million based on a ten-game run. They overpaid because they remembered the good and forgot the bad. Let us not make the same mistake.

I believe you can say that about a lot of players in the team, specially all the new contracts.

CJ Jones
11-28-2012, 09:36 PM
I hate the perception that he has been a bad defender just because our pick and roll defense is terrible. People ripped him for being schooled by Tony Parker, but it wasn't Parker breaking him down one on one. I think Hill is a very solid defender.

Me too. I've stated this several times, but I also think he can give a little more effort than he has. He just now getting into bball shape and he played with a wrap on his thumb for weeks so I expect he'll improve in all facets of the game as the season rolls along.

aamcguy
11-28-2012, 09:50 PM
If there was one player I wanted to get into the lane, I would take Tony Parker over every single player in the league. Including Rose/LeBron/Westbrook or whoever you want to throw in there. He's the driving force behind the Spurs' offense. They have great off-ball movement and great ball movement. But Parker repeatedly penetrates and opens up all the passing lanes for his team.

Using him as an example for Hill's lapses in defense is silly IMO. Parker can beat everybody in the league on a regular basis.

Ace E.Anderson
11-28-2012, 10:06 PM
Hill's a good player, but he's still not a PG, and that will be exploited again in the playoffs.

That's funny, who was the last great PG that led his team to a championship? Tony Parker?

When we lose in the playoffs, it won't be because of Hill.

Dr. Awesome
11-28-2012, 10:08 PM
I still hate the deal.

I love that he is clutch, but overall, he is not worth that amount.

Ace E.Anderson
11-28-2012, 10:13 PM
Omer Asik is significantly more valuable than George Hill. I do know no team had the cap space to make GH that kind of offer. I do know no team did offer it because we signed an RFA in such a rush, for no apparent reason, instead of waiting for him to get an offer. Do you really think someone out there was waiting around for the end of the RFA time period to throw GH a 10M a year deal? No? Neither do I nor any other reasonable person on Earth does either.

Asik may be more valuable NOW, but prior to this season he was noting but a big physical body that could clog the lane. Meanwhile Hill had shown the ability to be a valuable contributor on playoff teams. We don't know who may have been interested in Hill. But when you compare him to other players making the same amount, he's not grossly overpaid to the point that it's a detriment to the team.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 10:32 PM
I was a guy that wanted Hill since the day he was drafted by San Antonio(yes I was looking at the "green grass") I was also happy when they made the trade for him, I really like what he brings to the Pacers and with all that said I think the Pacers overpay for him a bit.

I would also like to say that Hill's overpaying is the less worse of the Pacers overpaying problems this off season, Ian, Green and Roy are the contracts people should complain about because they are just horrible.

vnzla81
11-28-2012, 10:43 PM
By the way if you are mad at Hill's contract I'm telling you to get yourself ready to be disappointed with West's new contract next year.

naptownmenace
11-28-2012, 10:45 PM
Me too. I've stated this several times, but I also think he can give a little more effort than he has. He just now getting into bball shape and he played with a wrap on his thumb for weeks so I expect he'll improve in all facets of the game as the season rolls along.

I think we keep overlooking that Hill missed all of the preseason with that hip-pointer and thumb injury. I believe that if Danny was healthy at the start of the season, he might've sat out the first couple of games. I expect his shooting accuracy to come back if the thumb injury fully heals.

I reserve all judgement on his contract until the end of the season. Getting into it at this point is useless. There are way too many games left to play.

rexnom
11-29-2012, 12:23 AM
The Bulls/Knicks did not have full Bird rights on Asik/Lin. The poison pill is actually the NBA trying to help teams in the Bulls and Knicks situation retain their players. Before, if Houston had offered a deal with that amount of money to Lin/Asik, the Bulls and Knicks would have been prohibited from matching. Now they can match but since they don't have full Bird rights, they would have had to match it by only paying 5 million the first two years and then a huge jump up, which is where the poison pill was. It's just a way for teams over the cap to be able to keep their players and still satisfy cap rules.

The Pacers did have full Bird rights on Hill. So there was zero potential for a poison pill contract and the Pacers could have matched whatever contract Hill got on the market. The Pacers must have either wanted the certainty of that 5th year, or been so close on money that they couldn't take the risk of Hill going onto the market even if he very likely would have signed for less.
The Pacers would still have had to match the terms of the contract--it's not about whether they could or not. With Hibbert and George's contract's rising, my argument was merely that they would not have been able to afford a poison pill-structured contract, given future cap considerations.

Cubs231721
11-29-2012, 10:09 AM
The Pacers would still have had to match the terms of the contract--it's not about whether they could or not. With Hibbert and George's contract's rising, my argument was merely that they would not have been able to afford a poison pill-structured contract, given future cap considerations.

In Hill's situation, there was no worry about a poison pill contract. Other teams would not have been allowed to give him such a contract. It violates cap rules. The contract wouldn't have to be flat like the Pacers gave him, but there are strict rules on how much the contract can be raised or lowered from year 1. What happened in the Lin/Asik situation could not have happened to the Pacers and Hill.

HOOPFANATIC
11-29-2012, 10:27 AM
I was a guy that wanted Hill since the day he was drafted by San Antonio(yes I was looking at the "green grass") I was also happy when they made the trade for him, I really like what he brings to the Pacers and with all that said I think the Pacers overpay for him a bit.

I would also like to say that Hill's overpaying is the less worse of the Pacers overpaying problems this off season, Ian, Green and Roy are the contracts people should complain about because they are just horrible.
I agree with all of them except Roy. His contract is the going market for what he is worth he is an all star center and you can't take that away from him regardless of how he comes back and plays.

Trophy
11-29-2012, 10:33 AM
He's been a solid PG. He's racking up more assists and has become a better leader at the point. He's kept the offensive flow moving.

In comparison to Collison and when he was here starting, Hill is the more trustworthy starting PG.

Justin Tyme
11-29-2012, 11:22 AM
fact is you don't know if there was competition for him, you are assuming that there was no competition for him, the Rockets signed Omer Asik for over 8 mil a year, you can't tell me that you know for sure no team offered Hill, because you don't know.


You act like it was a top secret that another team was interested in Hill, and no one knew anything about it! This is the NBA where rumors galore abide. The NBA isn't the CIA where secrets abound.

The point is Walsh was bidding against himself. Hill was a RFA which gave Walsh a chance to match an offer sheet from another team. "NO" NBA team signed Hill to an offer sheet. There is a reason for that. No other teams were interested. IIRC, Hill turned down an offer from Bird previously. The number 7 mil seems to stick in my mind. Other teams weren't interested in Hill at that type of money. Checkbook Donnie rushed in bid against himself, and overpaid Hill when there was no reason to do so. That's why Hill is overpaid. If Hill had stayed in San Antonio, do you truly think RC Buford would have given Hill anything close to a 5 year 40 mil contract?? If you do, then I have some ocean front property down in Brown county I'd like to sell you.

I felt all long, and I'm on record saying I felt Hill was worth between 4.5 and 5.5 mil. 6 mil wouldn't have been too much, but "8" mil was just plain overpaying. Thank you Mr. Walsh!

Let's compare Hill with another home state player.... Mike Conley. Both are PG's and Conley makes a little less salary this year. Conley is a TRUE PG, where as Hill isn't. Conley is averaging 15 PPG on 50% FG, 43% 3pt, 81.6% FT. Conley averages 6.5 Ast with a 2-1 Ast/TO ratio. Conley is a better PG and makes his team mates better players. There is no doubt which is the better bargain or means more to their respective team as their PG, and it sure isn't George Hill.

Nuntius
11-29-2012, 11:38 AM
I believe you can say that about a lot of players in the team, specially all the new contracts.

You could also say the opposite about the players we let go, though ;)

Justin Tyme
11-29-2012, 11:53 AM
I would also like to say that Hill's overpaying is the less worse of the Pacers overpaying problems this off season, Ian, Green and Roy are the contracts people should complain about because they are just horrible.


The salary isn't the issue it's the 3 & 4 year guaranteed contracts that are the problem.

I was checking the daily scores this morning when I noticed a team winning a game with their bench scoring 55% of their points, over half the rebs, and 2 of the reserve/bench players making $854,389 in salary while combining for 34 pts and 14 rebs. What the shame is the Pacers could have had one of those players, and wouldn't have had to trade for Mahinmi. That bench/reserve player is averaging 9.5/5.5 in 17 MPG for $854,389. Now that's a travesity!

Really?
11-29-2012, 12:00 PM
I believe you can say that about a lot of players in the team, specially all the new contracts.

Shut, you can say that about most of the players in the NBA, NBA contracts are in a large part built on potential, production is key as well, but how else do you explain a lot of these contracts being given out. We didn't overpay for Hill, for Hibbert, now that is a different story, but really in this market what are you to do.

Hill is still young enough and is getting better in the PG role, I think he fits well with this team, and really has seemed like a leader.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 12:03 PM
The salary isn't the issue it's the 3 & 4 year guaranteed contracts that are the problem.

I was checking the daily scores this morning when I noticed a team winning a game with their bench scoring 55% of their points, over half the rebs, and 2 of the reserve/bench players making $854,389 in salary while combining for 34 pts and 14 rebs. What the shame is the Pacers could have had one of those players, and wouldn't have had to trade for Mahinmi. That bench/reserve player is averaging 9.5/5.5 in 17 MPG for $854,389. Now that's a travesity!

I agree, there are many players for less than 1mil a year doing better things than Ian and Green, overpaying for those two was a huge mistake.

Ace E.Anderson
11-29-2012, 12:04 PM
You act like it was a top secret that another team was interested in Hill, and no one knew anything about it! This is the NBA where rumors galore abide. The NBA isn't the CIA where secrets abound.

The point is Walsh was bidding against himself. Hill was a RFA which gave Walsh a chance to match an offer sheet from another team. "NO" NBA team signed Hill to an offer sheet. There is a reason for that. No other teams were interested. IIRC, Hill turned down an offer from Bird previously. The number 7 mil seems to stick in my mind. Other teams weren't interested in Hill at that type of money. Checkbook Donnie rushed in bid against himself, and overpaid Hill when there was no reason to do so. That's why Hill is overpaid. If Hill had stayed in San Antonio, do you truly think RC Buford would have given Hill anything close to a 5 year 40 mil contract?? If you do, then I have some ocean front property down in Brown county I'd like to sell you.

I felt all long, and I'm on record saying I felt Hill was worth between 4.5 and 5.5 mil. 6 mil wouldn't have been too much, but "8" mil was just plain overpaying. Thank you Mr. Walsh!

Let's compare Hill with another home state player.... Mike Conley. Both are PG's and Conley makes a little less salary this year. Conley is a TRUE PG, where as Hill isn't. Conley is averaging 15 PPG on 50% FG, 43% 3pt, 81.6% FT. Conley averages 6.5 Ast with a 2-1 Ast/TO ratio. Conley is a better PG and makes his team mates better players. There is no doubt which is the better bargain or means more to their respective team as their PG, and it sure isn't George Hill.

Conley's salary THIS year is lower, but he is actually being paid 5 million more over the life of the contract. Also, Conley has been playing for the same team, with the same starting 5 for 3 years now. Chemistry and familiarity has as much to do with his numbers as his talent. Why do I say that? Because just last year he averaged 13 and 6, and before that 14 and 6 with respectable shooting %'s. (44% and 37% from 3) The bump in scoring has to do with the fact that he's shooting 50% from the field and 43% from 3, who knows if he'll be able to keep up with that pace, but his career says that he wont.

Meanwhile this is Hill's first full year of being a PG, and his first full year as a starter for a Pacer team that is missing their best player, and has made a bunch of changes to their bench. He is coming off an injury in pre-season, and is easily having the WORST stretch of shooting within his career (normally 44% from the field and 37% from 3--the exact SAME as Conley).

So bottom line, with Conley shooting the best he has throughout his career, and Hill shooting the worst within his career, the difference in points is a mere .9ppg and assists is 1.1apg. When you take into account the other factors (Hill's clutch ability, Hill coming off an injury, missing his team's best player, Hill being a first time starter, etc) I think it's clear that the numbers you spoke of for Conley are definitely not worth the EXTRA 5 million dollars throughout the life of the contract.

So if you want to use Mike Conley as an example, then no, George Hill isnt overpaid.

Nuntius
11-29-2012, 12:17 PM
I was checking the daily scores this morning when I noticed a team winning a game with their bench scoring 55% of their points, over half the rebs, and 2 of the reserve/bench players making $854,389 in salary while combining for 34 pts and 14 rebs. What the shame is the Pacers could have had one of those players, and wouldn't have had to trade for Mahinmi. That bench/reserve player is averaging 9.5/5.5 in 17 MPG for $854,389. Now that's a travesity!

Blatche was a risk, wouldn't you agree? Some risks pay off but not all of them do. Would you prefer the Pacers to take a risk on Blatche and thus having no back-up C if it didn't work out?

PS: Or would you prefer us to bring the 38 year-old Stackhouse instead of Gerald Green?

Jon Theodore
11-29-2012, 12:17 PM
George Hill is not overpaid, he is a baller who is keeping this team afloat right now and he is not anywhere near 100%.

Really?
11-29-2012, 12:18 PM
I agree, there are many players for less than 1mil a year doing better things than Ian and Green, overpaying for those two was a huge mistake.

So early in the year, if they can get back to how they played during the preseason they will look like bargains again.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 12:28 PM
The reason why I think George Hill was overpay is because the marked was full of point guards, Hinrich,Watson,DJ,Felton, Fishers, Dwill, Dragic,etc, how many teams are really going to overpay for Hill? I think the Pacers had a chance to get a discount by letting the market set up his price and they screwed up.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 12:32 PM
So early in the year, if they can get back to how they played during the preseason they will look like bargains again.

They are not playing like they played in pre-season, they are playing how they have been playing for a big part of their careers during the regular season, Green and Mahinmi have been end of the bench players and in Green's case he was out of the NBA for a reason, they are just not that good.

Nuntius
11-29-2012, 12:45 PM
Green and Mahinmi have been end of the bench players and in Green's case he was out of the NBA for a reason, they are just not that good.

So, a "not that good" and "end of the bench" player was the reason we beat the Lakers?

'Cause replace Ian with Lou (and I still love Lou, by the way) and we would have lost in LA.

Ace E.Anderson
11-29-2012, 01:14 PM
The reason why I think George Hill was overpay is because the marked was full of point guards, Hinrich,Watson,DJ,Felton, Fishers, Dwill, Dragic,etc, how many teams are really going to overpay for Hill? I think the Pacers had a chance to get a discount by letting the market set up his price and they screwed up.

Now I could see this point. However, outside of D-Will, maybe Dragic and Felton, none of those players are better than George. Dragic blew up last yr in his contract yr, and Felton was coming off a horrible yr 1/2 in POR and DEN, so he wasn't going to get much.

George is fairly young still, and will only be 31 by the time this contract is complete. Now yes, we should've allowed him to test the waters, but had he gotten an outrageous offer, we'd be S.O.L. All it takes is one team to really like a player. So it works both ways.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 01:21 PM
So, a "not that good" and "end of the bench" player was the reason we beat the Lakers?

'Cause replace Ian with Lou (and I still love Lou, by the way) and we would have lost in LA.

And you know that because? even Lou had some good games once in a while, for example 21 points and 8 rebounds against Portland last year, or 11 and 10 against New Orleans, one game doesn't make the 4mil a year for the next 4 years to Ian a good deal and one game doesn't make him a good player either.

McKeyFan
11-29-2012, 01:27 PM
Why did we turn down GHill's $7 million offer mid season last year if we were to simply hand him an immediate $8 million when summer negotiations started?

:whoknows:

Since86
11-29-2012, 01:29 PM
Why did we turn down GHill's $7 million offer mid season last year if we were to simply hand him an immediate $8 million when summer negotiations started?

:whoknows:

I've often wondered exactly that. My personal conclusion is that Hill had been in contact with other team(s) and had been offered something verbally, or said he was offered something verbally, because holding out and not signing the extension during the season when GH was asking for 7.5per (I think that was the number) and then giving him 8 doesn't make any sense at face value.

Speed
11-29-2012, 01:40 PM
Maybe because he hadn't taken the reins yet as the starting point guard, yet. He was also injured last winter with the shoulder deal.

I mean its not that surprising a newly acquired back up combo guard with a bum shoulder is worth less in January than a starting point guard with a great winning percentage who leads his team up 2 to 1 over the eventual champs in May.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 01:48 PM
Why did we turn down GHill's $7 million offer mid season last year if we were to simply hand him an immediate $8 million when summer negotiations started?

:whoknows:

Different management, Bird is the one that turned that deal down, remember that Walsh came here after the season was over and as always Walsh likes to overpay.

Ace E.Anderson
11-29-2012, 02:05 PM
Different management, Bird is the one that turned that deal down, remember that Walsh came here after the season was over and as always Walsh likes to overpay.

I'm no Walsh fan, but nobody LIKES to overpay. Is dumb enough to overpay maybe, but he isn't sitting there saying "who can we overpay for today!"

Ace E.Anderson
11-29-2012, 02:05 PM
I've often wondered exactly that. My personal conclusion is that Hill had been in contact with other team(s) and had been offered something verbally, or said he was offered something verbally, because holding out and not signing the extension during the season when GH was asking for 7.5per (I think that was the number) and then giving him 8 doesn't make any sense at face value.

This is why I think either Hill had interest from other teams, or he convinced our FO that he had some major interest from other teams. Any other conclusion isn't logical.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 02:11 PM
I'm no Walsh fan, but nobody LIKES to overpay. Is dumb enough to overpay maybe, but he isn't sitting there saying "who can we overpay for today!"

His record shows that he overpays, I don't know if he likes it but he overpays must of the time, for example Croshere, JO, Tinsley, Amare, Chandler, now Roy, Hill, Green, Mahinmi, this are just examples from the top of my head but I can come up with more.

Really?
11-29-2012, 02:17 PM
They are not playing like they played in pre-season, they are playing how they have been playing for a big part of their careers during the regular season, Green and Mahinmi have been end of the bench players and in Green's case he was out of the NBA for a reason, they are just not that good.

Greens problem dealt more with his attitude and growth than it did with his actual game play, and again, it is early in the season, we don't even have a consistent rotation, as far as Mahinmi he is actually playing a lot worst than he has before in his career, Blocks are up a lot, but he is shooting less than 40% when in the past he has always been above 55%. The justification you gave was just wrong, sorry.

Derek2k3
11-29-2012, 02:19 PM
13.8 ppg and 5.3 apg, may not sound like great numbers but the Pacers made the right move signing him for that amount of money. Hill has made 2 game winning shots this season last night and @ Toronto in the opener, even last season Hill was ranked top 10 in the NBA in his productions in the final 2 minutes, the dude is clutch. I know some people say we over payed for him but I disagree, Hill was worth every bit of it. We have two players we can go to for buckets when we need them and that is George Hill and David West.

I agree. However, I'd like to see the clutch stats you're talking about. Is that on 82games.com or something?


The counter-argument would be that if George Hill played better before the final two minutes of the game, we wouldn't have needed the heroics. I mean, the guy spotted the Lakers at least four points on easy fast breaks last night, and in the first half he only managed three points against All-NBA defenders Darius Morris and Chris Duhon. His shooting has been atrocious all season and his passing remains sub-par for a starting point guard. In a season where we desperately need consistency from our players (and we're certainly not getting it from Hibbert and George), Hill hasn't delivered. You could argue that he's been the second best player on the team thus far, but the team is only 7-8.

He hasn't shied away from the big moments, and he's hit more game-winners than I can remember, but let's judge the guy on the entirety of his work - every game, every minute. The front office already gave him $40 million based on a ten-game run. They overpaid because they remembered the good and forgot the bad. Let us not make the same mistake.

Agreed. And because of that, I'm very happy to have him, even at $8M. Why? Because there are 2 players that absolutely make the biggest difference for this team when they are on or off the floor: Hill and West. Against LA, the very moment Hill goes out, the offense stops moving the ball and getting clean looks. I mean, it was crazy how fast things turned offensively.

If they measured hockey assists, things would look different. However, everyone judges based on the assists number, and on a team like Indiana we just aren't racking a bunch of those up. First, we run a lot of clear outs for West and PG. Second, the offense is built around making the extra pass, so Hill initiates the offense, but typically won't get an assist.

I would argue that Hill HAS delivered. He's playing with a 5 that can't shoot, a 3 that takes awful jumpers, and a 2 that is still growing/much better in transition. Things have gotten better nearly every game, this team has outplayed San Antonio and LA in 7 of the last 8 quarters. There has been clear improvement of late, lets see if/when the improvement stops. The Pacers are trending upwards, and I believe Hill is a key reason for it.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 02:22 PM
Greens problem dealt more with his attitude and growth than it did with his actual game play

Attitude and growth is included on the evaluation of a player isn't it? and is not like his actual game was that good either, he got much better but is still not good enough for him to earn the contract he got.



and again, it is early in the season, we don't even have a consistent rotation, as far as Mahinmi he is actually playing a lot worst than he has before in his career, Blocks are up a lot, but he is shooting less than 40% when in the past he has always been above 55%. The justification you gave was just wrong, sorry.

I got to watch Ian a lot in Dallas and he looks like the same guy to me, yes he was good in pre-season but it was pre-season....

Ace E.Anderson
11-29-2012, 02:22 PM
His record shows that he overpays, I don't know if he likes it but he overpays must of the time, for example Croshere, JO, Tinsley, Amare, Chandler, now Roy, Hill, Green, Mahinmi, this are just examples from the top of my head but I can come up with more.

Well JO and Amare weren't being overpaid until they got injured. I don't think Tyson Chandler is overpaid for the impact that he has on the game.

It's way too early to be able to tell about our current guys, but I bet Roy ends up overpaid, and maybe Green. I personally don't mind the Mahinmi and Hill deals, thought they could've been a yr shorter.

I follow what you're saying though. I dislike Walsh tbh, and I hope we either allow Pritchard to call more shots, or bring Bird back before we allow Walsh to make more FO mistakes.

Since86
11-29-2012, 02:26 PM
It's impossible to know how often Walsh overpays, for a number of reasons. The biggest is because we're not privvy to information on the players that Walsh had a shot a signing, but then turned down because he thought they were asking too much.

Am I saying he does it often? No. I'm simply saying we don't know, so trying to make conclusions from half of the situation is pretty hard to do.

BillS
11-29-2012, 02:44 PM
I don't remember, how many years was the midseason offer for? And was it a $7.5M average on an increasing contract that would have perhaps been $9M+ in the last year? The difference between $7M and $8M might have been the requirement to keep it a flat contract, making it much more tradeable down the road than one that increased to above that number.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 03:01 PM
It was 6mil a year but we don't know the salary increase.


Stock up: Pacers PG George Hill is helping his value. He turned down a $6 million-per-year extension before the season and now might get more this summer as a restricted free agent. The Spurs and Tim Duncan, especially, want him to return to San Antonio, but San Antonio might not be able to afford him. New York Daily News

BillS
11-29-2012, 03:10 PM
It was 6mil a year but we don't know the salary increase.

Wait, HE turned it down, the Pacers didn't. How is this one relevant to the discussion that the Pacers could have had him for cheaper mid-season?

Justin Tyme
11-29-2012, 03:17 PM
Blatche was a risk, wouldn't you agree? Some risks pay off but not all of them do. Would you prefer the Pacers to take a risk on Blatche and thus having no back-up C if it didn't work out?

PS: Or would you prefer us to bring the 38 year-old Stackhouse instead of Gerald Green?


Blatche needed to get out of Washington... PERIOD! The culture there was detrimental to him. I've wanted Blatche, since he was a RFA. Unfortunately, the Pacers still had David Harrison, so there was no reason to get Blatche. We all know how that turned out! Some cities/teams aren't good for players. Good example was Portland for Z-Bo. You could make a case for Tinsley and Indy/Pacers as well. I wince everytime I see the Tinjury ast # in the daily box scores.

I've heard all the stories about Blatche same as I heard all the stories about Z-Bo. Different teams can change a player. Not to mention Blatche is on a ONE YEAR contract like Augustin. I'll bet the ole family farm that Blatche produces more on his one year contract than Augustin does. Any takers? I thought not!

Blatche is an ABSOLUTE STEAL at $854,389. He can play both the 4 & 5, and produce. He's not up in age like both JO and Rasheed who are producing on $854,389 contracts. It was an absolute blunder for not picking up Blatche for $854,389. But hey, Walsh traded 2 players to sign Mahinmi to 4 mil a year on a 4 guaranteed year contract. Walsh is paying 79% more for Mahinmi for less production. Someone tell me again why Walsh was re-hired to run the Pacers?

I NEVER said I was interested in Jerry Stackhouse, now did I? I just pointed out he contributed to the Nets bench success last night. I'm surprised any team even picked him up this year. He was a benchsitter and towel waiver last season in Atlanta. Personally, I'd rather have a player like the Nets seldom used Marshon Brooks than Stackhouse anyday everyday.

Justin Tyme
11-29-2012, 03:23 PM
Why did we turn down GHill's $7 million offer mid season last year if we were to simply hand him an immediate $8 million when summer negotiations started?

:whoknows:


DARN GOOD QUESTION!

Maybe Checkbook Donnie thought Hill needed a little extra spending money.

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 03:31 PM
Wait, HE turned it down, the Pacers didn't. How is this one relevant to the discussion that the Pacers could have had him for cheaper mid-season?

I thought it was important to know how much he turned down.

BillS
11-29-2012, 03:42 PM
I thought it was important to know how much he turned down.

OK. Were you able to find anything on the deal the Pacers supposedly turned down?

vnzla81
11-29-2012, 03:47 PM
OK. Were you able to find anything on the deal the Pacers supposedly turned down?

I think that was it, the Pacers offered him 6mil a year he turned down and they moved on, maybe there was another offer? I don't know.

Eleazar
11-29-2012, 03:49 PM
DARN GOOD QUESTION!

Maybe Checkbook Donnie thought Hill needed a little extra spending money.


Not really if you just look at each situation within the proper time frame. When we were negotiating with him during the season it was as a back-up. When we were negotiating with him in the offseason it was as a starter. He had a lot more leverage in the offseason than during the season.

BillS
11-29-2012, 03:52 PM
I think that was it, the Pacers offered him 6mil a year he turned down and they moved on, maybe there was another offer? I don't know.

Some of the comments here are springboarding off the idea that he offered to accept either $7M or $7.5M and the Pacers turned it down. Starting negotiating at $6M and ending at $8M isn't nearly as insane as having the chance to buy for $7M and then buying at $8M would have been.

Trader Joe
11-29-2012, 03:57 PM
I love the idea that has arisen on PD that Donnie Walsh is the only GM in the history of the NBA who has ever overspent on a player. Just too funny. Let's look at the teams just in our own division who have overspent:

Bulls: Boozer, and now Taj Gibson.

Bucks: How about 5 year/32 million on Drew freaking Gooden in 2010? They decided to take on Beno Udrih's crazy contract too.

Pistons: Charlie Villanueva. Ben Gordon. Enough said.

Cavaliers: Remember when they paid Larry Hughes all the money in the world after they lost out on Michael Redd? Right now though, their contracts are pretty good. Only team in our division that hasn't gone crazy, but that is mostly because of what happened with the decision.

The lesson here? Every team makes bad contracts. Every GM has made a bad deal at some point. MOST GMS in the NBA have a history of overspending. Welcome to the league we live in and have fostered.

Derek2k3
11-29-2012, 04:21 PM
Some of the comments here are springboarding off the idea that he offered to accept either $7M or $7.5M and the Pacers turned it down. Starting negotiating at $6M and ending at $8M isn't nearly as insane as having the chance to buy for $7M and then buying at $8M would have been.

I haven't found anything anywhere that says the Pacers turned down an offer at a $7.5M extension. All that happened was Indiana offered a $6M extension, which was turned down by Hill/his agent.

Indiana never had the chance to sign George for $7.5M

I'm not sure how that ever got started.

Since86
11-29-2012, 04:31 PM
I haven't found anything anywhere that says the Pacers turned down an offer at a $7.5M extension. All that happened was Indiana offered a $6M extension, which was turned down by Hill/his agent.

Indiana never had the chance to sign George for $7.5M

I'm not sure how that ever got started.


http://www.pacersdigest.com/archive/index.php/t-69168.html

I'm thinking there were other sources, but I'm not going to dig too deep on it. The story being told at the time was that the Pacers wanted him for 6M and he wanted 7.5M per.

Pace Maker
11-29-2012, 04:41 PM
I'll take it for now. We need more guys like him badly on our team.

Like I said before, David West and George Hill are the only two players who don't look like they're wetting the bed when the going gets tough. Everyone else looks scared, I feel like its because they come from other successful teams

Nuntius
11-29-2012, 05:26 PM
And you know that because? even Lou had some good games once in a while, for example 21 points and 8 rebounds against Portland last year, or 11 and 10 against New Orleans, one game doesn't make the 4mil a year for the next 4 years to Ian a good deal and one game doesn't make him a good player either.

Simply because Lou wouldn't make 7 out of his 10 FTs. Having your back-up big shoot 70% from the line is a big commodity.

Yes, Lou had some great games and for all I know he could play great against LA if he was brought back (and mind you, I was not against bringing back Lou, I still love the guy) but there's no way that he would go 7 - 10 from the line. And without that 7 - 10 we're not winning this game. Plain and simple.

Nuntius
11-29-2012, 05:37 PM
I got to watch Ian a lot in Dallas and he looks like the same guy to me, yes he was good in pre-season but it was pre-season....

How a player looks to you (or anyone) and how a player plays according to the stats are two different things.

Derek2k3
11-29-2012, 05:47 PM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/archive/index.php/t-69168.html

I'm thinking there were other sources, but I'm not going to dig too deep on it. The story being told at the time was that the Pacers wanted him for 6M and he wanted 7.5M per.

Ah, thanks.

Although, again, this isn't anything solid. What I get from that is that Indiana wanted a deal, when they couldn't get it they decided it was worth dealing with once they knew what it was going to take to get Roy. $7.5M to $8M isn't a big deal to these guys, I guess. (I'll take that extra little $500,000/year, if they want.)

Nuntius
11-29-2012, 05:57 PM
Blatche needed to get out of Washington... PERIOD! The culture there was detrimental to him. I've wanted Blatche, since he was a RFA. Unfortunately, the Pacers still had David Harrison, so there was no reason to get Blatche. We all know how that turned out! Some cities/teams aren't good for players. Good example was Portland for Z-Bo. You could make a case for Tinsley and Indy/Pacers as well. I wince everytime I see the Tinjury ast # in the daily box scores.

I've heard all the stories about Blatche same as I heard all the stories about Z-Bo. Different teams can change a player. Not to mention Blatche is on a ONE YEAR contract like Augustin. I'll bet the ole family farm that Blatche produces more on his one year contract than Augustin does. Any takers? I thought not!

Blatche is an ABSOLUTE STEAL at $854,389. He can play both the 4 & 5, and produce. He's not up in age like both JO and Rasheed who are producing on $854,389 contracts.

And I absolutely agree with this.

Yes, Blatche needed to get out of Washington. Yes, he need a change of culture. All of this is true.

But are you sure that he would be able to produce this good here?

Personally, I don't think so. The situation in Brooklyn is better. Wanna know why?

1) Lower expectations in Brooklyn. Simply put, people expected Indiana to be a top 3 team since last year set the expectations so high. Brooklyn was expected to need some time to gel.

2) The new stadium and the relocation from New Jersey to Brooklyn acts as a morale booster for the Nets players.

3) The news of Granger's injury a day before the first game of the season act as a morale sapper for the Pacers players.

I think that if he came here he would be caught up in our slow start and our horrible offense and wouldn't look all that sexy.

However, I do agree that for the amount of money he gets he would be a steal anyway.

rexnom
11-29-2012, 06:20 PM
In Hill's situation, there was no worry about a poison pill contract. Other teams would not have been allowed to give him such a contract. It violates cap rules. The contract wouldn't have to be flat like the Pacers gave him, but there are strict rules on how much the contract can be raised or lowered from year 1. What happened in the Lin/Asik situation could not have happened to the Pacers and Hill.
Of course, structured increases. Forgot about those. Thanks.

Sookie
11-29-2012, 06:57 PM
I love the idea that has arisen on PD that Donnie Walsh is the only GM in the history of the NBA who has ever overspent on a player. Just too funny. Let's look at the teams just in our own division who have overspent:

Bulls: Boozer, and now Taj Gibson.

Bucks: How about 5 year/32 million on Drew freaking Gooden in 2010? They decided to take on Beno Udrih's crazy contract too.

Pistons: Charlie Villanueva. Ben Gordon. Enough said.

Cavaliers: Remember when they paid Larry Hughes all the money in the world after they lost out on Michael Redd? Right now though, their contracts are pretty good. Only team in our division that hasn't gone crazy, but that is mostly because of what happened with the decision.

The lesson here? Every team makes bad contracts. Every GM has made a bad deal at some point. MOST GMS in the NBA have a history of overspending. Welcome to the league we live in and have fostered.

And our "bad" contract is George Hill..

Personally, I love George Hill the player. I don't love George Hill the point guard. But I'd honestly rather have him play the point than not have him.

CJ Jones
11-29-2012, 07:05 PM
Roy Hibbert is our bad contract, not George Hill.

For the people who don't like Hill's contract, how much do you think he's over paid?

xIndyFan
11-29-2012, 08:25 PM
http://www.pacersdigest.com/archive/index.php/t-69168.html

I'm thinking there were other sources, but I'm not going to dig too deep on it. The story being told at the time was that the Pacers wanted him for 6M and he wanted 7.5M per.

We may be talking apples and oranges here. If the $6M and $7.5M were only the starting salaries, the contracts would be worth $34.5M and $43.25M over the 5 years.

A contract with a starting salary of $6M and 7.5% raises [$450K] would be $6M, $6.45M, $6.9M, $7.35M and $7.8M for a total of $34.5M over the full five years.

A contract with a starting salary of $7.5M and 7.5% raises [$562.5K] would be $7.5M, $8.0625, $8.625, $9.1875 and $9.75. For a total of $43.25M over 5 years.

Looking at those numbers, it seems likely the Pacers and George Hill compromised at $40M/5yrs instead of the $34.5 the Pacers offered and the $43 that Hill wanted. FWIW, the $40M/5yrs comes out to a starting salary of just under $7M with normal raises. Converting to a straight salary just made the contract easier to fit into the salary scale in the end years when the Pacers are trying to fit Paul, Danny and David into the salary cap while paying Roy's salary.

Eleazar
11-29-2012, 08:27 PM
Roy Hibbert is our bad contract, not George Hill.

For the people who don't like Hill's contract, how much do you think he's over paid?

Even Hibbert isn't a bad contract, how many teams have a defensive presence in the middle as good as Hibbert? 3 maybe 4 teams. Is he earning his contract no, but it is far from bad. If he would just stop pulling up short on the hook shot, which he consistently made in the past, no one would have a complaint about him.

Ace E.Anderson
11-29-2012, 08:32 PM
Much like DC before him, George Hill is the Pacers starting PG so he's going to receive hate no matter WHAT he does.
And this is coming from a DC hater...

CJ Jones
11-29-2012, 08:34 PM
Even Hibbert isn't a bad contract, how many teams have a defensive presence in the middle as good as Hibbert? 3 maybe 4 teams. Is he earning his contract no, but it is far from bad. If he would just stop pulling up short on the hook shot, which he consistently made in the past, no one would have a complaint about him.

Thats what I meant. So far Hibbert's not earning his $. He needs to play at least as well as last year offensively to earn that contract. Hill hasn't played great, but he's been nowhere near as bad as Roy.

Eleazar
11-29-2012, 08:49 PM
Thats what I meant. So far Hibbert's not earning his $. He needs to play at least as well as last year offensively to earn that contract. Hill hasn't played great, but he's been nowhere near as bad as Roy.

There is a difference between being overpaid and bad. Most people knew Hibbert was going to be overpaid with this new contract, it was just a matter of was it better to overpay and have him, or not overpay and not have him. Since Hibbert is a rare commodity it was better to overpay.

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 10:14 AM
And I absolutely agree with this.

Yes, Blatche needed to get out of Washington. Yes, he need a change of culture. All of this is true.

But are you sure that he would be able to produce this good here?

Personally, I don't think so. The situation in Brooklyn is better. Wanna know why?

1) Lower expectations in Brooklyn. Simply put, people expected Indiana to be a top 3 team since last year set the expectations so high. Brooklyn was expected to need some time to gel.

2) The new stadium and the relocation from New Jersey to Brooklyn acts as a morale booster for the Nets players.

3) The news of Granger's injury a day before the first game of the season act as a morale sapper for the Pacers players.

I think that if he came here he would be caught up in our slow start and our horrible offense and wouldn't look all that sexy.

However, I do agree that for the amount of money he gets he would be a steal anyway.


I'm confident that Blatche would be producing at the same rate that he's producing now or even better as a Pacer as he'd be getting more minutes of playing time.

He also would be playing for a possible starters spot if the Pacers shouldn't re-sign DWest. That and playing for a new contract should make him produce more as a Pacer than as a Net.

Anyway you cut it, slice it, or dice it Blatche is a steal this year at 79% less than Mahinmi!

Nuntius
11-30-2012, 10:21 AM
I'm confident that Blatche would be producing at the same rate that he's producing now or even better as a Pacer as he'd be getting more minutes of playing time.

He also would be playing for a possible starters spot if the Pacers shouldn't re-sign DWest. That and playing for a new contract should make him produce more as a Pacer than as a Net.

Anyway you cut it, slice it, or dice it Blatche is a steal this year at 79% less than Mahinmi!

I agree that he is a steal at this price.

I'm just not sure if he would be motivated enough to produce here or he'd give us his Washington production.

That's what I mean by saying that it was a risk. Of course, we could take a risk on Blatche and then bring back Fes (for example) and thus even if the Blatche risk failed we would still have a back-up C.

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 10:39 AM
Roy Hibbert is our bad contract, not George Hill.

For the people who don't like Hill's contract, how much do you think he's over paid?



IMO, Hill is being overpaid by 2-2.5 mil.

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 11:18 AM
Much like DC before him, George Hill is the Pacers starting PG so he's going to receive hate no matter WHAT he does.
And this is coming from a DC hater...


Hate/hater is so over used. If someone disagrees with others, they are a hater. Easy label to slap on someone who disagrees. It's part of todays culture to label others a hater when they don't agree with your view or opinion.

I have NEVER missed voting in an election, since I was old enough to vote. Some don't or won't take the time to vote, but b/c I do "does it mean that those I vote against I hate? No, it just means I feel someone else is better qualified for whatever reason or reasons.

My feeling that Hill was overpaid by Walsh doesn't mean I hate or dislike George Hill the BB player. It means I feel Walsh dropped the ball and overpaid Hill when it wasn't necessary. It means I don't feel Hill is a "8 MILLION DOLLAR MAN". It doesn't mean I feel Hill isn't worthy of being a Pacer, but that I feel Hill got overpaid. NO ONE hopes George Hill produces to make that 8 mil contract one that isn't an overpaid contract more than I DO!

Again, hate/hater is nothing more than a label to put on someone that doesn't agree with your views/opinions. It seems some try to use those words to make others shy away from expressing their opinions. If it's not a popular opinion, then it has to be hate or expressed by a hater. In the 50's, when others expressed different opinions the label of Pinkie or Communist was applied to make them fall in line with the popular thinking people.

Bottom line is that those that express their opinions no matter how vehemently IS NOT HATE NOR ARE THEY HATERS!

Thank you for your time and now back to the regular program.

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 11:27 AM
I agree that he is a steal at this price.

I'm just not sure if he would be motivated enough to produce here or he'd give us his Washington production.

That's what I mean by saying that it was a risk. Of course, we could take a risk on Blatche and then bring back Fes (for example) and thus even if the Blatche risk failed we would still have a back-up C.


$854,389 is nothing more than peanuts for the risk. Augustin is on a 1 year contract for more, and the risk of that contract isn't looking so bright at the present time. I must commend the Nets for taking the risk. It will pay dividends for them.

BillS
11-30-2012, 11:27 AM
IMO, Hill is being overpaid by 2-2.5 mil.

So when Hill turned down the $6M offer you'd have said see ya?

ChicagoJ
11-30-2012, 11:42 AM
Whether Hill is anybody's "dream PG" or not isn't the point. If he were the PG that some of you are pining for, he would be making MUCH more than $8M/ year anyway, and something else would have to give to make it all fit together.

Regardless of which G positiweon Hill is playing, he's worth that contract. He's just a player that needs to be on the court. I'm open to the idea that without Granger, we have the worst (or at the very best, we have the least consistent) wings in the league. So if we could get a better point guard and move Hill to SG then we might indeed be a better team... especially when Danny returns.

Absent Hill and West, this is back to a 32-win team (with or without Granger). Those are the two guys that are absolutely earning their contracts this season and that the Pacers can't afford to go forward without.

Eleazar
11-30-2012, 12:02 PM
If this was last season I would say Hill wasn't worth 8, but the way he has been playing he is well worth the 8. What makes it even better is Hill could easily be playing better than he has.

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 12:25 PM
So when Hill turned down the $6M offer you'd have said see ya?


If Hill wouldn't have re-signed for 6 mil, he should have been made to get an offer sheet from another team. No offer sheet, then sign on the dotted line for 6 mil.

Pacers had the option of matching the offer sheet from another team. It's my belief Hill's agent couldn't come up with a offer sheet from another team at the salary Hill wanted, so Hill's agent worked Walsh over to get Hill his current contract. W/o an offer sheet Hill's agent is at a disadvantage. Thus Hill shouldn't get overpaid, but Walsh is in control. Walsh overpaid when only bidding against himself. SMH

If Hill had gotten a 7 mil contract from some team, then match it and try to do a S&T with the team who gave Hill the offer sheet to recoup some value from the SA trade. Or watch how the season worked out with Hill at 7 mil. If the season didn't justify Hill's salary, then move him. The Pacers still had DC on contract for 1 more year.

Eleazar
11-30-2012, 12:29 PM
If Hill wouldn't have re-signed for 6 mil, he should have been made to get an offer sheet from another team. No offer sheet, then sign on the dotted line for 6 mil.

Pacers had the option of matching the offer sheet from another team. It's my belief Hill's agent couldn't come up with a offer sheet from another team at the salary Hill wanted, so Hill's agent worked Walsh over to get Hill his current contract. W/o an offer sheet Hill's agent is at a disadvantage. Thus Hill shouldn't get overpaid, but Walsh is in control. Walsh overpaid when only bidding against himself. SMH

If Hill had gotten a 7 mil contract from some team, then match it and try to do a S&T with the team who gave Hill the offer sheet to recoup some value from the SA trade. Or watch how the season worked out with Hill at 7 mil. If the season didn't justify Hill's salary, then move him. The Pacers still had DC on contract for 1 more year.

You are talking like we know what happened behind closed doors. When in reality we have no idea. All we know is the end result.

Nuntius
11-30-2012, 12:31 PM
If someone disagrees with others, they are a hater.

No, that's not it. I've disagreed with several people in these forums (just like everyone else) but I have never ever been called a hater. Because I'm not.

The people who are called hater are called like this because they never give credit where it's due. For example, let's say that player X has a good game. Then the person Y says that "he still sucks" instead of a "good job, tonight". That's what hating a player means. It's not a matter of disagreeing with others. It's a matter of not giving credit where its due.

DC had a lot of haters last year. People used him as a scapegoat for all our troubles. Our offense sucked and people thought that he was the reason why. This was the popular opinion back then, by the way. DC is not here anymore and our offense still sucks. We still have the same problems. So, DC wasn't the problem. Why did people thought that he was? Because several people hated him. Not all people who adopted that opinion hated DC but the ones who started this opinion certainly did. It was the popular opinion but it was still a hater's one.

I remember a certain poster in a post-game thread after a game in which DC was crucial for us getting the win saying the following:

"Good win by the Pacers, DC still sucks."

Let me post 3 other hater opinions (non-Pacers related):

1) "LeBron James does not play well in big games". Again, not all people who adopted that opinion were / are haters but the ones who started it were / are haters. It's not a factual opinion. It's just something that builds up a narrative and stirs drama (something that the media love, by the way).

2) "Blake Griffin can only dunk". Again, not a factual opinion. It is mostly used as a shot towards Blake and it was started by people who hated him as a player.

3) "Monta Ellis is a ballhog that never passes the ball". The same thing as the above. It was an opinion disproved by statistics but people still held on it. Once again, not all people who adopted this opinion were haters but the ones who started it were. Personally, I used to support this opinion but after watching the games a bit more closely and checking the statistics a bit more I stopped supporting it as it became obvious that it was non-factual opinion. I'm not sure if I hated Monta per se back then but one thing is sure. I didn't give credit where it was due. And it was wrong on my part.

It's quite natural for people to like or dislike players. It's part of human nature and you cannot do anything about it. But you have to give credit where it's due. That's all there is to it in order to not be labeled a hater.

By the way, I don't consider you a Hill hater. It's apparent that your problem is not with Hill as a player. It's with Hill's contract. And you have every reason to hate a contract. As long as you give Hill credit when he plays well (as far as I remember, you do) there's no reason for anyone to consider you a hater.

Nuntius
11-30-2012, 12:33 PM
$854,389 is nothing more than peanuts for the risk. Augustin is on a 1 year contract for more, and the risk of that contract isn't looking so bright at the present time. I must commend the Nets for taking the risk. It will pay dividends for them.

I agree that $854,389 are peanuts. But that was not the risk involved. The risk involved was not having a b/u 5 in case Blatche didn't pan out.

Coopdog23
11-30-2012, 12:34 PM
He is the reason we have won a few of the games this year

aamcguy
11-30-2012, 12:34 PM
Whether or not we COULD have got a better deal at this point is irrelevant. We DID sign him for 8 million a year. He fits our team, and if you're watching him this year he seems to turning into a better point guard by the week.

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 12:38 PM
If this was last season I would say Hill wasn't worth 8, but the way he has been playing he is well worth the 8. What makes it even better is Hill could easily be playing better than he has.


Yes, and if Walsh had gotten Hill for 6 mil everyone would have said Walsh was Exec of the Year too. Hill wouldn't even have to have a great season to be worth 6 mil, but at 8 mil he has to have a super season to be worth it. "The true fact is that salary paid makes how good the player's play has to be in order to justify the contract."

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 12:42 PM
I agree that $854,389 are peanuts. But that was not the risk involved. The risk involved was not having a b/u 5 in case Blatche didn't pan out.


I was under the impression that was why BIRD drafted Plumlee. Otherwise, why draft him?

Eleazar
11-30-2012, 12:55 PM
Yes, and if Walsh had gotten Hill for 6 mil everyone would have said Walsh was Exec of the Year too. Hill wouldn't even have to have a great season to be worth 6 mil, but at 8 mil he has to have a super season to be worth it. "The true fact is that salary paid makes how good the player's play has to be in order to justify the contract."

OK, what is your point? Yeah obviously it would have been better to get him at $6 million, everyone knows that without you going on and on about it.

$2 million is the difference between not needing to have a great season, and needing to have a super season? At that standard only LeBron consistently lives up to his contract.

If you have some information from a credible source that says we didn't try to get him for cheaper than by all means present it. If all you are doing is speculating because you personally don't think he is worth $8 million, please stop talking about how we didn't try to get him for less.

Nuntius
11-30-2012, 01:06 PM
I was under the impression that was why BIRD drafted Plumlee. Otherwise, why draft him?

You are right. I forgot about Miles :-o

Shame on me :(

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 01:17 PM
You are talking like we know what happened behind closed doors. When in reality we have no idea. All we know is the end result.


That doesn't have to make me happy with the end results!

I said when it came to light that there was a chance Walsh would be replacing Bird I felt it was a grave mistake. I still do!

I also stated if Walsh took over my interest in the Pacers would wain. AND unfortunately IT HAS! This comes from a Pacers fan who was there for the telethon to keep the Pacers afloat.

Nuntius
11-30-2012, 01:31 PM
I also stated if Walsh took over my interest in the Pacers would wain. AND unfortunately IT HAS!

That just makes me sad :(

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 01:48 PM
OK, what is your point? Yeah obviously it would have been better to get him at $6 million, everyone knows that without you going on and on about it.

$2 million is the difference between not needing to have a great season, and needing to have a super season? At that standard only LeBron consistently lives up to his contract. If you have some information from a credible source that says we didn't try to get him for cheaper than by all means present it. If all you are doing is speculating because you personally don't think he is worth $8 million, please stop talking about how we didn't try to get him for less.

I can see we have different opinions about my views. I put my views in a polite mannerly fashion w/o any gutteral verbage. If you don't agree, then fine. I don't always agree with your views, but I don't tell you to stiffle them. Nor do I appreciate you telling me to stop talking about the issue.


NO, I have no info, but then neither do you or others to the contrary, now do you? I have opinions the same as you. If my posts aren't to your liking and you deem them repetitive, might I suggest you put me on ignore, so you won't have to read my repetitive views. Please have a nice day.

Eleazar
11-30-2012, 02:20 PM
NO, I have no info, but then neither do you or others to the contrary, now do you?

No, but I am not making accusations either. That is the difference. I am not going around acting like I have some kind of idea of how it went down. All I know is that we signed Hill for a flat $8 million a year(not abnormal for a starter of his quality), and so far he has lived up to his contract. That is all I know. You might think he hasn't, and you have the right to that opinion, I am not arguing against your opinion, that doesn't mean it is ok to go around making accusations about how the front office should have done it when you have no idea how it actually happened. You are just creating baseless rumors.

Cubs231721
11-30-2012, 02:37 PM
I agree that $854,389 are peanuts. But that was not the risk involved. The risk involved was not having a b/u 5 in case Blatche didn't pan out.

I would argue the risk was primarily PR. The Pacers still have a fragile fanbase who is just beginning to show interest in the team again. If Blatche comes in and has another major off the court issue, that could easily contaminate the entire team for the fans. I know they were willing to take that risk with Lance, but he didn't have quite as long of a history of incidents as Blatche does. Also, there was more upside with Lance since they had him cheaply for four years if he worked out.

diamonddave00
11-30-2012, 02:52 PM
While the Pacers may be over paying George Hill , his contract does not increase each season which is a plus.

Thats the key reason why Roy Hibbert's contract is the Pacers bad contract. Unlike Hill's , Hibbert's contract goes higher and higher each season. He was rewarded with a new contract with a 1st year raise in excess of 10 million dollar , with future increses to 14.3, 14.9 and 15.5 mil a season.

While George Hill has increased his productivity , thru a 5th of the season Roy has become an even more inconsistant player than at any time since his rookie season. People talk oh he just posted a triple double - yes he did his 11 rebounds were in large part to his own lousy shooting 3 of13 fga. His fg% has dropped from almost 50% to less than 39% even in his worse seasons JO on too many fade aways shot better. His ft% from 71% to 53% . Do you think the Blazers are wishing Walsh didn't resign Roy at the moment? More likely they sent him a Christmas card with a huge thank you .

The one plus is with looser calling of fouls he has increased his blocks per game from 2 to 3. Roy is a great guy but he has come no where near earning his money , not even earning what he was paid last season. At least in Hill's case you make a strong case he has been clutch late in games.

beast23
11-30-2012, 05:07 PM
I really don't see all the need for argument concerning how the Pacers and Hill arrived at 8M per year.

First off, it's not like the Pacers started with a 20M per year offer and worked there way DOWN to 8M per year. Duh. Isn't it far more likely that the Pacers, not wanting to be too confrontational, started at some offer and worked their way UP to 8M per year? Of course it is.

I doubt this negotiation was very formal in nature at all. I'm sure a lot of it was verbal until the Pacers either offered a number or agreed to a number that both parties could easily sign off on. Again, I think that they wanted the negotiations to remain amicable and did not want to risk confrontation at all. It was probably a pretty simple negotiation for both sides.

Does it really matter how they got there? The fact is, that they are at 8M per year. Whether you think that is too much is a different story.

Justin Tyme
11-30-2012, 06:06 PM
I really don't see all the need for argument concerning how the Pacers and Hill arrived at 8M per year.

First off, it's not like the Pacers started with a 20M per year offer and worked there way DOWN to 8M per year. Duh. Isn't it far more likely that the Pacers, not wanting to be too confrontational, started at some offer and worked their way UP to 8M per year? Of course it is.

I doubt this negotiation was very formal in nature at all. I'm sure a lot of it was verbal until the Pacers either offered a number or agreed to a number that both parties could easily sign off on. Again, I think that they wanted the negotiations to remain amicable and did not want to risk confrontation at all. It was probably a pretty simple negotiation for both sides.

Does it really matter how they got there? The fact is, that they are at 8M per year. Whether you think that is too much is a different story.



Ist let me say in the 4 years I've been associated with PD you are one of my favorite posters. I might add I wish you posted more!

Now to your post which has merit. I have neogiated business deals most of my life, and I absolutely can't stand to leave money on the table b/c of poor neogoiating. My main issue is that Walsh was bidding against himself, since Hill's agent never tendered an offer sheet. People can say other teams had interest in Hill all day long, but there was never an offer sheet. An offer sheet says someone is truly interested and not just speculation that other teams were interested. W/o an offer sheet Walsh was bidding against himself. This just grinds my gears.

Yes, I feel Hill is overpaid. IF the Pacers could have saved 2 mil on Hill it was 2 mil more Walsh could have spent on better upgrading the bench. The same can be said concerning Hibbert's overpaid contract.

I fully realize BIG men get paid more, and that Hibbert would get paid well. But why overpay? After Portland pulled out of the bidding, who was left that had the money and need? Both J McGee and D Jordan signed contracts that pay them 10 mil this year. Jordan is averaging 10/7 per game and McGee is 10/6. Personally, I feel they both are overpaid for those numbers. Where as DWest is an absolute bargain this year at 10 mil!

I will admit some of my being upset with what I feel are overpaid contracts and poor contracts is, b/c I NEVER wanted Walsh back. I had NO confidence in Walsh being able to do the job properly. So far he's justified my belief. Walsh was the reason Chris Mullins got Exec of the Year for pawning Dunleavy and Murphy's albatross contracts off on the Pacers. I really wish I didn't feel as harshly about Walsh as I do, but he's done nothing to change my mind about him.

I will end by saying I hope both Hill and Hibbert's play justify their contracts. I never mind having to say I'm wrong or having to eat crow when I'm wrong.

BillS
12-01-2012, 09:38 AM
I fully realize BIG men get paid more, and that Hibbert would get paid well. But why overpay? After Portland pulled out of the bidding, who was left that had the money and need?

But Portland pulled out because the Pacers announced they would match the offer. Is it your position that once Portland pulled out the Pacers should have said, "Ha ha fooled you here's a non-matching offer"?

That seems wrong on so many levels as well as meaning Portland could have just gone ahead and come right back with their offer sheet.

Justin Tyme
12-01-2012, 01:22 PM
But Portland pulled out because the Pacers announced they would match the offer. Is it your position that once Portland pulled out the Pacers should have said, "Ha ha fooled you here's a non-matching offer"?

That seems wrong on so many levels as well as meaning Portland could have just gone ahead and come right back with their offer sheet.

IIRC, Portland had to re-sign their own FA Batum. They were considering signing BRoy as well. The Pacers were leaning towards matching the Portland's offer sheet. Once an offer sheet has been signed it puts a hold on Portlands cap space. Portland decided to not sign Hibbert and re-signed Batum. Once Portland was out of the picture, who did Walsh have to bid against?

Once Portland re-signed Batum they couldn't make another offer sheet to Hibbert. Pacers in drivers seat. BB is 1st and foremost a business. It's not a business for the faint of heart. Was there ever anything concrete from the Pacers to Hibbert saying they would match Portland's offer?

Hibbert and agent knew the Pacers were going to sign Hibbert to a contract. The point is the Pacers were in the drivers seat once Portland backed out. Walsh was bidding against himself again.

I have to give Walsh credit when credit is due, he only gave Hibbert a 4 year contract instead of a 5 year contract. The contract is bad enough now, but a 5 year contract would have been an absolute financial disaster for the Pacers for years to come.

King Tuts Tomb
12-01-2012, 01:26 PM
IIRC, Portland had to re-sign their own FA Batum. They were considering signing BRoy as well. The Pacers were leaning towards matching the Portland's offer sheet. Once an offer sheet has been signed it puts a hold on Portlands cap space. Portland decided to not sign Hibbert and re-signed Batum. Once Portland was out of the picture, who did Walsh have to bid against?

You can't do this. Once you promise to match an offer sheet there's no taking it back, unless you never want to sign another free agent again.

Nuntius
12-01-2012, 01:31 PM
I would argue the risk was primarily PR. The Pacers still have a fragile fanbase who is just beginning to show interest in the team again. If Blatche comes in and has another major off the court issue, that could easily contaminate the entire team for the fans. I know they were willing to take that risk with Lance, but he didn't have quite as long of a history of incidents as Blatche does. Also, there was more upside with Lance since they had him cheaply for four years if he worked out.

That's a good point as well.

Justin Tyme
12-01-2012, 01:33 PM
But Portland pulled out because the Pacers announced they would match the offer. Is it your position that once Portland pulled out the Pacers should have said, "Ha ha fooled you here's a non-matching offer"?

That seems wrong on so many levels as well as meaning Portland could have just gone ahead and come right back with their offer sheet.


Who was the player that agreed to re-sign with Cleveland then signed with Utah for more money? Just the opposite I know, but no team after that refused to sign him over doing it. Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on.(Yogi Berra?)

Justin Tyme
12-01-2012, 01:42 PM
You can't do this. Once you promise to match an offer sheet there's no taking it back, unless you never want to sign another free agent again.


Didn't Portland rescind Hibbert's offer sheet? Isn't that a sign of bad faith and business? They made the offer 1st, so shouldn't they have to stick with their offer sheet?

Let's face it, in the business world companies rescind offers on deals all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if Herb Simon's company hasn't done that exact thing.

Derek2k3
12-01-2012, 02:22 PM
Didn't Portland rescind Hibbert's offer sheet? Isn't that a sign of bad faith and business? They made the offer 1st, so shouldn't they have to stick with their offer sheet?

Let's face it, in the business world companies rescind offers on deals all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if Herb Simon's company hasn't done that exact thing.

No, they didn't. They offered it, Indiana told Roy they were matching, so Roy never signed it.

Now, I think someone reported that the deal was rescinded after Indiana matched...which basically means nothing.

Cubs231721
12-01-2012, 03:26 PM
IIRC, Portland had to re-sign their own FA Batum. They were considering signing BRoy as well. The Pacers were leaning towards matching the Portland's offer sheet. Once an offer sheet has been signed it puts a hold on Portlands cap space. Portland decided to not sign Hibbert and re-signed Batum. Once Portland was out of the picture, who did Walsh have to bid against?

Once Portland re-signed Batum they couldn't make another offer sheet to Hibbert. Pacers in drivers seat. BB is 1st and foremost a business. It's not a business for the faint of heart. Was there ever anything concrete from the Pacers to Hibbert saying they would match Portland's offer?

Hibbert and agent knew the Pacers were going to sign Hibbert to a contract. The point is the Pacers were in the drivers seat once Portland backed out. Walsh was bidding against himself again.

I have to give Walsh credit when credit is due, he only gave Hibbert a 4 year contract instead of a 5 year contract. The contract is bad enough now, but a 5 year contract would have been an absolute financial disaster for the Pacers for years to come.

The Pacers called Hibbert to tell them they were going to match. They almost certainly didn't put it in writing because they needed Hibbert to wait to sign his contract to use the extra cap space. If they put an intention to sign him to a contract in writing, they would have risked running afoul of the NBA's rule about abusing the cap.

Portland still had money to spend after Batum signed. They just didn't have the potential to offer the max anymore. IIRC, they were only a couple of million off from being able to afford both. Dallas to name another example also had cap space available after missing out on Williams. Plus, Hibbert's an emotional guy. If the Pacers suddenly pulled the rug out from him and withdrew the offer after promising him they would match, don't you think Hibbert likely bolts for one of those teams even if it ends up being slightly less money?

Justin Tyme
12-01-2012, 03:49 PM
The Pacers called Hibbert to tell them they were going to match. They almost certainly didn't put it in writing because they needed Hibbert to wait to sign his contract to use the extra cap space. If they put an intention to sign him to a contract in writing, they would have risked running afoul of the NBA's rule about abusing the cap.

Portland still had money to spend after Batum signed. They just didn't have the potential to offer the max anymore. IIRC, they were only a couple of million off from being able to afford both. Dallas to name another example also had cap space available after missing out on Williams. Plus, Hibbert's an emotional guy. If the Pacers suddenly pulled the rug out from him and withdrew the offer after promising him they would match, don't you think Hibbert likely bolts for one of those teams even if it ends up being slightly less money?


I never liked the fact Hibbert was bolting the Pacers for Portland for more money in the 1st place. The Pacers drafted him and invested 4 years in him to only be slapped in the face b/c Hibbert wanted the BIG BUCKS and didn't care who paid them. This is a reason after Portland was out of the picture I'd never have matched Portland's offer. He'd have signed somewhere in the D Jordan and J McGee money range. If he was unhappy with the offer, S&T his rear to another team.

As far as Dallas goes, I don't see Cuban spending the money this past off season. I'm sure Portland and whoever else aren't sad they didn't sign Mr. Fragibility to the contract Hibbert got from the Pacers. Portland's FO has to be smiling over their loss of Hibbert.

Cactus Jax
12-01-2012, 04:09 PM
Who was the player that agreed to re-sign with Cleveland then signed with Utah for more money? Just the opposite I know, but no team after that refused to sign him over doing it. Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they are written on.(Yogi Berra?)

That was Boozer.

count55
12-01-2012, 05:28 PM
Didn't Portland rescind Hibbert's offer sheet? Isn't that a sign of bad faith and business? They made the offer 1st, so shouldn't they have to stick with their offer sheet?

No.

Portland did not rescind their offer. They had every intention of making the max offer. In fact, Hibbert was preparing to go to Portland to sign the sheet, when he was told that he'd be signing the same deal with the Pacers. The Pacers interceded and agreed to sign Hibbert to the same terms offered by Portland. Then, as a courtesy, the Pacers and Hibbert's agent notified Portland, so they would not have to go through the exercise of the offer sheet and the cap hold associated with it.

It was also reported that one other team offered Hibbert a max contract.
(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/07/01/roy-hibbert-trail-blazers-pacers-free-agency/index.html)


In addition, the source said one other team, which was not named, also offered Hibbert a max deal after the start of free agency on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. ET.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/07/01/roy-hibbert-trail-blazers-pacers-free-agency/index.html#ixzz2DqBsrGIE


Roy Hibbert was getting a max deal last summer - be it from the Pacers or another team.


I never liked the fact Hibbert was bolting the Pacers for Portland for more money in the 1st place. The Pacers drafted him and invested 4 years in him to only be slapped in the face b/c Hibbert wanted the BIG BUCKS and didn't care who paid them.



Once Portland re-signed Batum they couldn't make another offer sheet to Hibbert. Pacers in drivers seat. BB is 1st and foremost a business. It's not a business for the faint of heart.

...

OlBlu
12-01-2012, 06:00 PM
I never liked the fact Hibbert was bolting the Pacers for Portland for more money in the 1st place. The Pacers drafted him and invested 4 years in him to only be slapped in the face b/c Hibbert wanted the BIG BUCKS and didn't care who paid them. This is a reason after Portland was out of the picture I'd never have matched Portland's offer. He'd have signed somewhere in the D Jordan and J McGee money range. If he was unhappy with the offer, S&T his rear to another team.

As far as Dallas goes, I don't see Cuban spending the money this past off season. I'm sure Portland and whoever else aren't sad they didn't sign Mr. Fragibility to the contract Hibbert got from the Pacers. Portland's FO has to be smiling over their loss of Hibbert.

This may be the worst post I have ever seen on PD. If you think you can build a team by making bad faith moves like you describe try it and see how it works. Stars don't want to come here now but if they follow your suggestions, no player would want to come to the Pacers. Hibbert was a free agent and he had every right to sign with Portland or any other team that would pay him the most money. He didn't owe the Pacers a damn thing. That is what free agency is all about. :cool:

Ace E.Anderson
12-01-2012, 07:39 PM
I never liked the fact Hibbert was bolting the Pacers for Portland for more money in the 1st place. The Pacers drafted him and invested 4 years in him to only be slapped in the face b/c Hibbert wanted the BIG BUCKS and didn't care who paid them. This is a reason after Portland was out of the picture I'd never have matched Portland's offer. He'd have signed somewhere in the D Jordan and J McGee money range. If he was unhappy with the offer, S&T his rear to another team.

As far as Dallas goes, I don't see Cuban spending the money this past off season. I'm sure Portland and whoever else aren't sad they didn't sign Mr. Fragibility to the contract Hibbert got from the Pacers. Portland's FO has to be smiling over their loss of Hibbert.

Just like within any profession, professional athletes have the right to maximize how much money they are to be paid. If a team wants to offer him big money, why does he need to turn it down? Because the Pacers drafted and developed him? Unfortunately, that's NOT how it works. Yes the Pacers drafted and developed him, but that's the organizations job--to draft good players and put them in the best possible position to develop and succeed. Had the Pacers not drafted him, another team would have, and would have done the same thing--did everything they could top help him succeed.

You can argue that the Pacers could have went another route as opposed to re-signing Hibbert for a big money contract, but don't get angry at Roy because he maximized his earnings. He didn't MAKE the Pacers pay him. We made that decision as an organization. That's not on Roy.

ChicagoJ
12-01-2012, 09:17 PM
I liked what Jerry Reynolds said about Hibbert during the Kings' broadcast last night. "He's still 7'2", he hasn't shrunk and the FG% will come around."

If there was something Donnie did that I didn't like -- I don't like the Gerald Greene contract - its too much like Dhantay Jones' that we finally got rid of. It will be bad news next summer if we have difficulty resigning West because we could use another million or two from the Greene contract.

Paying Hibbert, a legit 7'2" C that type of money to be our second or third option seems like the right math and economics to me.

Paying $18 million this year to West and Hill to be our two go-to guys in the fourth quarter is pretty good cap management, IMO.

Justin Tyme
12-02-2012, 12:35 PM
Just like within any profession, professional athletes have the right to maximize how much money they are to be paid. If a team wants to offer him big money, why does he need to turn it down? Because the Pacers drafted and developed him? Unfortunately, that's NOT how it works. Yes the Pacers drafted and developed him, but that's the organizations job--to draft good players and put them in the best possible position to develop and succeed. Had the Pacers not drafted him, another team would have, and would have done the same thing--did everything they could top help him succeed.

You can argue that the Pacers could have went another route as opposed to re-signing Hibbert for a big money contract, but don't get angry at Roy because he maximized his earnings. He didn't MAKE the Pacers pay him. We made that decision as an organization. That's not on Roy.


Sorry, but loyalty works 2 ways. Where was Hibbert's loyalty to the Pacers? His loyalty was only to himself and his pocketbook with his "it's all about me attitude." I'm not asking Hibbert to re-sign for peanuts, but what he insisted on being paid is too much for him. He's not that quality of player for the money he's being paid.

Again, I can't believe Portland isn't smiling that the Pacers matched their offer. Personally, I feel they have a nice rookie in Meyers Leonard at Center for the future. Hibbert's overpaid contract makes him near impossible to trade with his play. Hopefully, he'll get his game together along with some mental toughness to make his contract a good one.

Sandman21
12-02-2012, 12:55 PM
Did you not read anything that Count55 posted?

Please, before you spout any more falsehoods about Roy's restricted free agency and his "all about me" attitude, please read up on NBA RFA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restricted_free_agent_%28NBA%29#Restricted_free_ag ent
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q43

Justin Tyme
12-02-2012, 01:05 PM
It was also reported that one other team offered Hibbert a max contract.
(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/sam_amick/07/01/roy-hibbert-trail-blazers-pacers-free-agency/index.html)...


Sorry w/o the name of who this mysterious 2nd team was with some type of validation, it is nothing but a rumor. The NBA is full of stories everyday that is nothing but rumors. I just don't believe Hibbert had another team chopping at the bit to sign him at that type of salary.

I'd hate to say how many times I've heard the story "I've got others interested if you aren't" at this price only to see those other interested parties never step up. It's called a negotiation ploy, and aqents aren't immuned to using it.

If you have some concrete info on who this supposed 2nd team was, I'd love to read it.

Hicks
12-02-2012, 03:16 PM
It doesn't matter if the 2nd team was a false rumor or not. Portland laid a max contract out for Roy. From that moment forward, that's what he was going to get, either from them or from us. Period.

Nuntius
12-02-2012, 03:25 PM
Sorry w/o the name of who this mysterious 2nd team was with some type of validation, it is nothing but a rumor.

If you have some concrete info on who this supposed 2nd team was, I'd love to read it.

The problem is that you are basing your arguments on rumors or beliefs as well.

Therefore, we cannot have a factual discussion here.

Justin Tyme
12-02-2012, 04:15 PM
It doesn't matter if the 2nd team was a false rumor or not. Portland laid a max contract out for Roy. From that moment forward, that's what he was going to get, either from them or from us. Period.


I hear you. I just feel the Pacers overpaid. Bottom line is the Pacers signed Hibbert to a max deal, and they are tied to that contract for 4 years. I TRULY hope Hibbert earns every dadgum penny of his max contract, but I have my doubts.

jeffg-body
12-02-2012, 09:03 PM
He is a heck of a player at either the 1 or the 2 and I am glad we paid the man.

Naptown_Seth
12-02-2012, 10:32 PM
It doesn't matter if the 2nd team was a false rumor or not. Portland laid a max contract out for Roy. From that moment forward, that's what he was going to get, either from them or from us. Period.
Exactly. This is the kind of stupid misunderstanding of fundamental facts that gets people with these crazy opinions.

Yes, if Roy murdered a baby then that would make him a horrible human being. He didn't, that's not a fact and opinions should not be based on it. Please apply this natural connection between FACT and OPINION DRAWN in all future debates, if only for our sanity.


It just bugs me so much because it's not the same as "he really did score 15 points" and one person's opinion is that this is "a lot" and another is "that's not enough". That's when people will have different opinions. But when someone decided that 15 points was really 1 point, then no s*** they won't think that he scored enough. Argh. And people wonder why they can't agree on some of this stuff.

Naptown_Seth
12-02-2012, 10:36 PM
Also, Roy is underperforming his PRIOR SEASONS. Take the contract of the books for a second. Right now Roy is not meeting his own standard, whatever value that might be. So until he meets his standard it's not appropriate to debate the intelligence of the resign.

What I mean is the Pacers didn't "blow it" because of what Roy is doing now. Roy is just not playing up to his level, and I mean his already established level, not some projected future level.

Maybe his established level is also not worth that money, but I have to think that if he were simply putting up the same numbers as last year we wouldn't even be discussing this. So let's first get past the "slump" issue and before we get on to evaluating if "normal Roy" would have been worth matching.

Naptown_Seth
12-02-2012, 10:43 PM
No, but I am not making accusations either. That is the difference. I am not going around acting like I have some kind of idea of how it went down. All I know is that we signed Hill for a flat $8 million a year(not abnormal for a starter of his quality), and so far he has lived up to his contract. That is all I know. You might think he hasn't, and you have the right to that opinion, I am not arguing against your opinion, that doesn't mean it is ok to go around making accusations about how the front office should have done it when you have no idea how it actually happened. You are just creating baseless rumors.
And this is the reason to establish the facts before fighting on the opinion. With the facts on George Hill we could pretty easily dispute or confirm if guys putting up his current numbers (also tied in with his last couple for a sense of growth and trending) typically get his type of paycheck. If they do, then his deal was a good one. If they don't then they missed.

I realize this is more boring than just being irrationally mad or positive about things, but I assure you there can still be passion about things that can be somewhat "proven".


To me it feels like Hill's numbers are similar to what an 8m PG would get, maybe even better than that. Then there is the harder to quantify "guts/clutch" factor, and if you want to keep the passion in the debate then maybe we should focus on that instead of FG%, AST, and PPG from an 8m guy.


Frankly the Pacers 2 key players are Hill and West, the entire offense only works because of what they do for the most part, so I'd say they were both easily worth the money and will continue to be so. Of course I also think Roy kicks the slide and comes back with a vengeance and ends up with a whole new bandwagon of fans. Frankly his defense is so good he's already earning a good chunk of his deal on that alone.

Heisenberg
12-02-2012, 10:50 PM
I honestly feel like some people haven't looked much into what players not on the Pacers get paid.

MvPlumlee
12-03-2012, 04:19 AM
Sorry, but loyalty works 2 ways. Where was Hibbert's loyalty to the Pacers? His loyalty was only to himself and his pocketbook with his "it's all about me attitude." I'm not asking Hibbert to re-sign for peanuts, but what he insisted on being paid is too much for him. He's not that quality of player for the money he's being paid.

Again, I can't believe Portland isn't smiling that the Pacers matched their offer. Personally, I feel they have a nice rookie in Meyers Leonard at Center for the future. Hibbert's overpaid contract makes him near impossible to trade with his play. Hopefully, he'll get his game together along with some mental toughness to make his contract a good one.

I wouldn't bother if I were you. The things they come up with to defend Hibbert says enough for me. And always it's his environment that causes most of it, never Roy.

Portland did us a favor by offering him that contract.
Hibbert is struggling because our spacing isn't any good.
Roy going to sign a contract with Portland isn't his wish, it's Portlands wish and he had to accept it because that is how FA works.

Like you said, it works both ways. Some players take a paycut to play somewhere, for the sake of the team, and it's a fact Hibbert isn't one of them. I'm not saying there aren't any influencing factors from outside, but for me it's 50-50 until proven otherwise. Portland offered the max and Roy accepted their offer. No need to sugarcoat it EDIT and say stuff like technically he didn't take the max. They just call it the max to feed the haters.

King Tuts Tomb
12-03-2012, 04:40 AM
Some players take a paycut to play somewhere, for the sake of the team

Outside of vets who have already made their big money, can you name a few?

MvPlumlee
12-03-2012, 06:43 AM
Outside of vets who have already made their big money, can you name a few?
I'm thinking about all players that didn't need a third party to come to an agreement. Of course, it's an unknown what they might have gotten if they would have.
I mean players like Granger, Horford... We don't know if they could have gotten more per year but it was possible.
Isn't that beneficial for the team? More money to spend every year and at least one year more committed to the team? Or 2 with Roy's PO.

That's why I don't have any problem with the George Hill deal. Our front office feared that yet another FO would dictate the terms of the contract of one our players and they prevented that with giving Hill a bit too pricey contract and George accepted it. It's easy to say of course he accepted it, overpaying him like that, but at least he and the team could work out a deal that seems good for him and good for our team (according to our FO). Hibbert got himself a deal that benefits him the most and not so much the team (according to our FO).

It's ok to disagree with that, everyone values players differently, but I would much rather have Roy to have the balls to be tough on the court than him to be tough in contract negotations. (Or tough enough to stand up against his agent). He could have said Paul Allen wants to pay me this much, I want close to it, but I'm willing to take a small paycut or drop the PO, or spread it over 5 years. Nope, it had to be what he got from the Trailblazers.

With the help of his agent tough enough to impose his will to Donnie and Kevin, but Baby Davis, Ronny Turiaf or Joel Anthony? No, not tough enough for that.

Justin Tyme
12-03-2012, 10:16 AM
Portland did us a favor by offering him that contract.

Hibbert is struggling because our spacing isn't any good.
Roy going to sign a contract with Portland isn't his wish, it's Portlands wish and he had to accept it because that is how FA works.


Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me, but I don't understand how Portland did us a favor.

If signing a contract with Portland wasn't Hibbert's wish, whose wish was it? There is absolutely nothing that says a player HAS to sign an offer sheet when one is offered. I'll take the Devil's Advocate stance and lets say there truly was another team who was interested in Hibbert. Team B wanted to sign Hibbert, but wasn't offering a max contract b/c they didn't feel he was worth a max. They offered him an offer sheet 1st. Just b/c team B offered Hibbert a contract doesn't mean he has to accept it. Portland offered a better contract, so he took it instead of Team B's offer.

I'll go on record like I did with Granger, and say Hibbert will never be an Allstar again. I'd love to be wrong, but truthfully I highly doubt I will be.


Edit: I'm also on record saying O'Brien will never be a head coach in the NBA again too.

King Tuts Tomb
12-03-2012, 10:52 AM
I mean players like Granger, Horford... We don't know if they could have gotten more per year but it was possible.

They took what they thought they could get. If they thought they could get Roy money, they would have.


That's why I don't have any problem with the George Hill deal. Our front office feared that yet another FO would dictate the terms of the contract of one our players and they prevented that with giving Hill a bit too pricey contract and George accepted it. It's easy to say of course he accepted it, overpaying him like that, but at least he and the team could work out a deal that seems good for him and good for our team (according to our FO). Hibbert got himself a deal that benefits him the most and not so much the team (according to our FO).


So your problem is with the concept of restricted free agency? All your examples of good guys have signed extensions.


It's ok to disagree with that, everyone values players differently, but I would much rather have Roy to have the balls to be tough on the court than him to be tough in contract negotations. (Or tough enough to stand up against his agent). He could have said Paul Allen wants to pay me this much, I want close to it, but I'm willing to take a small paycut or drop the PO, or spread it over 5 years. Nope, it had to be what he got from the Trailblazers.

So you wanted Roy to do three things:

-Take a pay cut. How much? A million? Two million?
-Drop the PO. And do what, make it a team option? I highly doubt the PO comes to matter at all.
-Spread his contract from 4 years to 5 (???) No one in their right mind would do this, in any field. This shows me that you're not talking about this rationally and you're just looking for a reason to hate.

Hicks
12-03-2012, 11:12 AM
I don't see how Portland did us a favor, either. Up until they offered him that max, I still thought there was a chance he would cost less. It was disheartening to see how wrong I was, and so quickly, once free agency began. I thought Roy would make between $11m-$13m per year on average. Nope. He got $14.5m per on average.

Eleazar
12-03-2012, 11:37 AM
I don't see how Portland did us a favor, either. Up until they offered him that max, I still thought there was a chance he would cost less. It was disheartening to see how wrong I was, and so quickly, once free agency began. I thought Roy would make between $11m-$13m per year on average. Nope. He got $14.5m per on average.

Big men are the most popular positions to overpay. When it works out they are often the most important player on the floor, and their impact far exceeds their stats. The problem is, most of the time the player can't live up to the artificially inflated salary, because the salary is based on what could be instead of what is. Could Hibbert live up to 14.5 on average, sure, but most likely he will only live up to about 12 on average.

MvPlumlee
12-03-2012, 11:59 AM
Maybe it's just too early in the morning for me, but I don't understand how Portland did us a favor.

If signing a contract with Portland wasn't Hibbert's wish, whose wish was it? There is absolutely nothing that says a player HAS to sign an offer sheet when one is offered. I'll take the Devil's Advocate stance and lets say there truly was another team who was interested in Hibbert. Team B wanted to sign Hibbert, but wasn't offering a max contract b/c they didn't feel he was worth a max. They offered him an offer sheet 1st. Just b/c team B offered Hibbert a contract doesn't mean he has to accept it. Portland offered a better contract, so he took it instead of Team B's offer.

I'll go on record like I did with Granger, and say Hibbert will never be an Allstar again. I'd love to be wrong, but truthfully I highly doubt I will be.


Edit: I'm also on record saying O'Brien will never be a head coach in the NBA again too.

Those are examples of other peoples words my friend, not mine ;)

vnzla81
12-03-2012, 12:31 PM
It doesn't matter if the 2nd team was a false rumor or not. Portland laid a max contract out for Roy. From that moment forward, that's what he was going to get, either from them or from us. Period.

Yes it does matter, there is a reason why I have arguments with people that throws bs information around to confuse those that don't know the facts, the more facts and true information we have the better this site if going to be, the more bs and false information we have the more closer this site is to become the next bleacherreport.

MvPlumlee
12-03-2012, 12:32 PM
They took what they thought they could get. If they thought they could get Roy money, they would have.



So your problem is with the concept of restricted free agency? All your examples of good guys have signed extensions.



So you wanted Roy to do three things:

-Take a pay cut. How much? A million? Two million?
-Drop the PO. And do what, make it a team option? I highly doubt the PO comes to matter at all.
-Spread his contract from 4 years to 5 (???) No one in their right mind would do this, in any field. This shows me that you're not talking about this rationally and you're just looking for a reason to hate.
Yes, I hate/don't like Hibbert and his deal. I have no problem admitting that. Hate/not liking makes you irrational.

So does love/liking.

BillS
12-03-2012, 02:18 PM
Yes it does matter, there is a reason why I have arguments with people that throws bs information around to confuse those that don't know the facts, the more facts and true information we have the better this site if going to be, the more bs and false information we have the more closer this site is to become the next bleacherreport.

Understood, but he meant it doesn't matter if the second team was false or not in terms of what Roy was going to get paid once Portland made their max contract offer.

xIndyFan
12-03-2012, 02:45 PM
Yes, I hate/don't like Hibbert and his deal. I have no problem admitting that. Hate/not liking makes you irrational.

So does love/liking.

Just an observation. I think you're posing what is called a false equivalency. [someone please correct me if I'm wrong.]

It seems that hating/not liking is way more likely to lead to irrationality than loving/liking. IMO, at least an order of magnitude greater.

BRushWithDeath
12-03-2012, 03:27 PM
Sorry, but loyalty works 2 ways. Where was Hibbert's loyalty to the Pacers? His loyalty was only to himself and his pocketbook with his "it's all about me attitude." I'm not asking Hibbert to re-sign for peanuts, but what he insisted on being paid is too much for him. He's not that quality of player for the money he's being paid.

Agreed. I just cannot believe a professional athlete would have the nerve to put his and his family's well being ahead of his loyalty to a team that could and would trade him in heartbeat for the right deal. What a selfish prick. I can't imagine anybody caring any less about the loyal fans than Roy Hibbert. How dare he take the amount that was offered to him by multiple teams of people whose sole job is to determine what price a player is worth. He should have told the management groups in Portland, Indiana, and the other clubs who offered him a max contract that he wasn't worth that much. We all know that's what we would have done in his shoes. Becasue we have a sense of loyalty.

Sandman21
12-03-2012, 04:03 PM
Some of these people saying Roy (or any non ring-chasing NBA player in their prime) should have taken less than he was offered should do the same the next time their employer offers them a raise, or risk the wrath of some random person telling they are getting paid too much for them....


Hmmm... I think theres an advertising campaign in there somehow.

beast23
12-03-2012, 04:03 PM
Portland did us a favor by offering him that contract.

I realize that I'm quoting one sentence taken out of context from your post. However, there is no way in heck that anyone should allow this statement to go unchallenged... because it is exactly 180 degrees from the truth.

Have you ever sat back and thought about how the summer's signings and trades went? Well, specifically how they could have gone differently?

Well, Portland making their early offer was the first domino that fell in what many on this forum believe to be a catastrophic summer of us not getting the players that we need to become true contenders in the NBA.

This minute Portland made that offer, we were compelled to commit to Hibbert, thus knowing that a significant portion of our cap space was about to disappear. This, and ultimately signing Hill early, eventually put us in a position that we were not able to sign some of the better players that were bought out or "amnestied" later.

In other words, Portland making their offer early forced the Pacers to put a rush on everything they wanted to do last summer.

There is no worse thing that could have happened to the Pacers last summer than another team making a run and Hibbert and/or Hill early.

BRushWithDeath
12-03-2012, 04:06 PM
I realize that I'm quoting one sentence taken out of context from your post. However, there is no way in heck that anyone should allow this statement to go unchallenged... because it is exactly 180 degrees from the truth.

Have you ever sat back and thought about how the summer's signings and trades went? Well, specifically how they could have gone differently?

Well, Portland making their early offer was the first domino that fell in what many on this forum believe to be a catastrophic summer of us not getting the players that we need to become true contenders in the NBA.

This minute Portland made that offer, we were compelled to commit to Hibbert, thus knowing that a significant portion of our cap space was about to disappear. This, and ultimately signing Hill early, eventually put us in a position that we were not able to sign some of the better players that were bought out or "amnestied" later.

In other words, Portland making their offer early forced the Pacers to put a rush on everything they wanted to do last summer.

There is no worse thing that could have happened to the Pacers last summer than another team making a run and Hibbert and/or Hill early.

Everybody with an inkling of a clue knew Roy was going to get a max offer as soon as free agency opened. This includes the Pacers. Nothing Portland did caught them off guard or "sped up the process". It was exactly what was expected.

vnzla81
12-03-2012, 04:17 PM
I realize that I'm quoting one sentence taken out of context from your post. However, there is no way in heck that anyone should allow this statement to go unchallenged... because it is exactly 180 degrees from the truth.

Have you ever sat back and thought about how the summer's signings and trades went? Well, specifically how they could have gone differently?

Well, Portland making their early offer was the first domino that fell in what many on this forum believe to be a catastrophic summer of us not getting the players that we need to become true contenders in the NBA.

This minute Portland made that offer, we were compelled to commit to Hibbert, thus knowing that a significant portion of our cap space was about to disappear. This, and ultimately signing Hill early, eventually put us in a position that we were not able to sign some of the better players that were bought out or "amnestied" later.

In other words, Portland making their offer early forced the Pacers to put a rush on everything they wanted to do last summer.

There is no worse thing that could have happened to the Pacers last summer than another team making a run and Hibbert and/or Hill early.

Bringing Walsh was worse in my opinion.

Derek2k3
12-03-2012, 04:20 PM
Bringing Walsh was worse in my opinion.

Or, alternatively, Bird leaving.

beast23
12-03-2012, 04:45 PM
Everybody with an inkling of a clue knew Roy was going to get a max offer as soon as free agency opened. This includes the Pacers. Nothing Portland did caught them off guard or "sped up the process". It was exactly what was expected.I'm not saying that the Pacers were caught by surprise by the timing or the amount. What I am saying is that committing to Hibbert early in the free agency period tied their hands as far as what they might have been able to accomplish late/later in the free agency signing period. Signing Hibbert was the first domino that fell in putting the shackles on what might have been accomplished had Hibbert's signing occurred later.

In that regard, neither Portland nor Hibbert did the Pacers any favors. If either Portland had not made the early offer or if Hibbert had refused to sign Portland's offer sheet until later in the summer, the Pacers might have been able to swing a couple of deals for better players than they eventually signed. Somewhere along the line, I think we have to consider that either Hibbert's first choice was to sign with Portland all along, or there was not enough trust existing between Hibbert and the Pacers for Hibbert to risk delaying signing anyone's offer sheet. After all, assuming Hibbert realized that his likelihood of returning to the Pacers was extremely high (whether that was his desire or not), wouldn't it also benefit Hibbert that the Pacers have as much flexibility as possible for improving the roster? The only way the Pacers would have been able to do that would have been by delaying the signing of Hibbert.

It didn't take a genious to figure that one out. Therefore, my conclusion that either Hibbert may have wanted to leave or that there was not mutual trust between team and player.

Heisenberg
12-03-2012, 04:58 PM
Remember when we didn't know how much every player made, not specifically anyway, we just knew they were pretty much all rich. Maybe I was just too young so I didn't care, but I have no clue how much Dale Davis EVER made, same with Jackson, hell I only knew Reggie made 11+ million a few years because it was a huge deal when he was a FA and everyone was talking about him going to the Knicks.

I don't really know what my point is, I follow the CBA stuff fairly closely, but it was just a lot more fun when I didn't know or care. No matter how good a guy may play there'll be people saying he's not worth the money. I don't know, just gotten so argumentative it takes a lot of the fun out of it.

MvPlumlee
12-03-2012, 05:13 PM
I realize that I'm quoting one sentence taken out of context from your post.

That's ok. It bothers me more that you still think those are my words. :)

If you could be so kind to take a look at this page:
http://www.pacersdigest.com/showthread.php?76367-Harden-traded-to-Houston/page8
You'll see that I actually agree with you.

MvPlumlee
12-03-2012, 05:30 PM
Just an observation. I think you're posing what is called a false equivalency. [someone please correct me if I'm wrong.]

It seems that hating/not liking is way more likely to lead to irrationality than loving/liking. IMO, at least an order of magnitude greater.
I disagree.

Hicks
12-03-2012, 07:13 PM
Everybody with an inkling of a clue knew Roy was going to get a max offer as soon as free agency opened.

Gee. Thanks.

Pacerized
12-03-2012, 11:48 PM
Bringing Walsh was worse in my opinion.

I agree. Right now I just want Walsh to set on his butt, collect a big paycheck and leave this team alone. No more free agent signings and no more trades. He's done enough damage already, I'd rather wait it out with what we have until Walsh is gone.

BRushWithDeath
12-04-2012, 12:48 AM
Gee. Thanks.

Did you not? If so, I didn't intend to demean. I just thought everyone knew what was going on at the time.

CJ Jones
12-04-2012, 01:14 AM
fwiw I didn't think he'd be offered a max contract until he was. I'm a newb though.

aamcguy
12-04-2012, 01:47 AM
Did you not? If so, I didn't mean to demean. I just thought everyone knew what was going on at the time.

I thought there was a decent possibility that he might, but I hoped he wouldn't get one. If I would have had to guess what his starting salary offer would be, I would have said 11-12 million.

Though he was very productive as a center (most of the time), he certainly wasn't dominant. And giving a non-dominant player a contract that will eventually be paying him over $15 million per year is frankly a bigger risk than resigning the same player. Because he proved last year he can play a vital role in our system. And he still is this year, even with his offensive struggles.

Hicks
12-04-2012, 09:20 AM
Did you not? If so, I didn't mean to demean. I just thought everyone knew what was going on at the time.

I knew it could happen, but I thought there was a decent chance it wouldn't. I thought GM's would have the same concerns/reservations about Roy that most of us do and that it might be serious enough to scare them off from throwing the max at him.

So while in hindsight I feel like I probably should have known, I really did think at the time he might get less. Like between 11-13 a year vs 14.5.

That having been said, even when Roy did get the max offer I was fully behind matching it because I feel like it was too important to let them go.

McKeyFan
12-04-2012, 09:33 AM
I knew it could happen, but I thought there was a decent chance it wouldn't. I thought GM's would have the same concerns/reservations about Roy that most of us do and that it might be serious enough to scare them off from throwing the max at him.

So while in hindsight I feel like I probably should have known, I really did think at the time he might get less. Like between 11-13 a year vs 14.5.

That having been said, even when Roy did get the max offer I was fully behind matching it because I feel like it was too important to let them go.

Roy will be worth the max when and if he gets his mind together for offense.

If past is prologue, this will happen off and on. I expect him to be hot on offense again at some point during this season.

If Roy's constant progression progresses to him becoming more and more streaky good than streaky bad, then we can probably handle his max contract.

Also, it's about playoffs. If he decides to lay an egg offensively during most playoff runs, we probably screwed up signing him.

So, we get to wait and see. He will always be an important anchor for the defense. He's worth many millions. But we simply have to pull out the popcorn and watch over the next several years to see if the max was a good idea.

BRushWithDeath
12-04-2012, 12:54 PM
That having been said, even when Roy did get the max offer I was fully behind matching it because I feel like it was too important to let them go.

That was the only, and still is the best, option.

Roy's contract isn't the reason we haven't improved. Not one iota.

Pacer Fan
12-05-2012, 11:16 AM
There is only one person that will convince me he is worth 40 million and George sure hasn't proved it at all.

boombaby1987
12-05-2012, 11:18 AM
There is only one person that will convince me he is worth 40 million and George sure hasn't proved it at all.

Of course you come in here after he has 1 poor game.

Hicks
12-05-2012, 01:12 PM
I feel about the same as I did in July; I thought he was worth about 6 or 7 per year, but I'm not going to cry because he got 8. I agree that it's odd that we didn't let the market set the price, though. Did we really worry someone would pay him over 8 per? I took the time heading into free agency to scout to see who might throw him a lot of money, and I didn't come up with anyone who I felt would overpay him. That was honestly strange to me. Still not upset, but it may have been a needless mistake nonetheless.

J7F
12-05-2012, 01:17 PM
I feel about the same as I did in July; I thought he was worth about 6 or 7 per year, but I'm not going to cry because he got 8. I agree that it's odd that we didn't let the market set the price, though. Did we really worry someone would pay him over 8 per? I took the time heading into free agency to scout to see who might throw him a lot of money, and I didn't come up with anyone who I felt would overpay him. That was honestly strange to me. Still not upset, but it may have been a needless mistake nonetheless.


My opinion was that Hill was not super keen on staying in Indiana and management knew this so they made a play to show him how much they wanted him... No facts to base this on... Just my thoughts...

Heisenberg
12-05-2012, 01:19 PM
Maybe there was a compromise, Hill gets 8 a year but he signs off on a flat rate instead of demanding raises at a deal starting at ~7, which saves us money. Maybe he demanded 8 or said he'll play out the year on his qualifying offer and walk, which I REALLY doubt, but never know.

I don't like that we didn't let his RFA status play out, but it's not like any of us were in the room.

Hicks
12-05-2012, 01:48 PM
My opinion was that Hill was not super keen on staying in Indiana and management knew this so they made a play to show him how much they wanted him... No facts to base this on... Just my thoughts...

The thing of it is, he didn't have much choice if he wanted to get paid now. He was our restricted free agent. He could have signed elsewhere, and we could then match the contract.

Eleazar
12-05-2012, 01:50 PM
My opinion was that Hill was not super keen on staying in Indiana and management knew this so they made a play to show him how much they wanted him... No facts to base this on... Just my thoughts...

I think that was more of an isolated incident that was overplayed by peoples paranoia.

eric1516
12-05-2012, 02:00 PM
I'm excited to see Hill play against Lillard tonight. He (Lillard) has had a great so far, especially for a rookie, and I think Hill's veteran leadership will greatly affect Lillards play.

Pacer Fan
12-05-2012, 02:06 PM
Of course you come in here after he has 1 poor game.

Just one bad game...
I never thought he was worth more then 6 mil per, which is well documented on this site since last spring, but again, I have a hard time with his current deal.

Ace E.Anderson
12-05-2012, 02:15 PM
There is only one person that will convince me he is worth 40 million and George sure hasn't proved it at all.

Yup. Cuz 15, 4 and 5 and clutch play isn't worth 40 Mil for a 26 yr old PG in the NBA.

Comparisons sake:

Ty Lawson: 4yrs, 48 MIL-- 13pts, 2 rebs, and 7 assts
Mike Conley: 5yrs, 45 MIL -- 15, 3 and 6
Steph Curry: 4 yrs, 44 MIL -- 19, 4 and 6
Jrue Holiday: 4 yrs, $41 MIL that can go up to $46 MIL -- 18, 4 and 9

Looking at just a few comparisons of what OTHER players got paid within their extensions, I'd say George Hill's contract isn't too outrageous.

Pacer Fan
12-05-2012, 02:49 PM
Yup. Cuz 15, 4 and 5 and clutch play isn't worth 40 Mil for a 26 yr old PG in the NBA.

Comparisons sake:

Ty Lawson: 4yrs, 48 MIL-- 13pts, 2 rebs, and 7 assts
Mike Conley: 5yrs, 45 MIL -- 15, 3 and 6
Steph Curry: 4 yrs, 44 MIL -- 19, 4 and 6
Jrue Holiday: 4 yrs, $41 MIL that can go up to $46 MIL -- 18, 4 and 9

Looking at just a few comparisons of what OTHER players got paid within their extensions, I'd say George Hill's contract isn't too outrageous.

This is counter productive to try and make me believe his contract is worthy. :(

TinManJoshua
12-05-2012, 06:35 PM
This is counter productive to try and make me believe his contract is worthy. :(

I would care for you to elaborate on why those numbers are counter productive.

Pacer Fan
12-05-2012, 06:56 PM
I would care for you to elaborate on why those numbers are counter productive.
Because 3 of those guys are at a higher level and I'd give up Hill and 2-3 mil of contracts in any combination of Pends, Ben, Orlando, Plumlee, Young for any of those 3 guys listed.

Ace E.Anderson
12-05-2012, 09:39 PM
Because 3 of those guys are at a higher level and I'd give up Hill and 2-3 mil of contracts in any combination of Pends, Ben, Orlando, Plumlee, Young for any of those 3 guys listed.

The 3 at a "higher level" are being paid more.

Eleazar
12-05-2012, 09:42 PM
The 3 at a "higher level" are being paid more.

They are all being paid more.

aamcguy
12-05-2012, 09:54 PM
Also Steph Curry came at a discount because of his ankle problems.

Pacer Fan
12-05-2012, 10:17 PM
Hill is paid to much because it is 8 mil for 5 years.
He is in the middle of the pack and comes with a very long contract.
My point to the previous question is because his contract is 2 million to high, the Pacers could have a Holiday, Conley or Step for a mere 2 million more which is nothing more then our 14 & 15th man's salary. That is quit a upgrade for nothing, the reason why is cause Hill is getting paid to much. If he was at 6 mil per then it would cost the Pacers more to get a 10 -11 mil guy. Like a Hill, Mahinmi and Young, this would cause a person to think twice on a trade cause you may be losing to much, hence, Hills contract (6mil) vs the production would be much better and the team would be losing a quality back up center.

Do any of you guys think that the Pacers could trade Hill and Pend's for Step Curry? I don't, no fat freakin chance. Therefore, Hill is paid to much and if he does no better in the future as he has done in his NBA career we will all be wishing for that 8 mil per year at years to come to end sooner rather then later. I would feel better about it if it was 16 mil for 2 yrs. rather then the 5. He can become a huge crutch very quickly. I hope he proves me wrong!!!

xIndyFan
12-05-2012, 10:37 PM
Maybe there was a compromise, Hill gets 8 a year but he signs off on a flat rate instead of demanding raises at a deal starting at ~7, which saves us money. Maybe he demanded 8 or said he'll play out the year on his qualifying offer and walk, which I REALLY doubt, but never know.

I don't like that we didn't let his RFA status play out, but it's not like any of us were in the room.

i suspect the pacers offered a salary starting at 6 and Hill wanted a salary starting at 7.5. Over 5 years, the former was 34M and the latter 43.5M. That would make the $40M/5yrs a logical compromise.

aamcguy
12-05-2012, 10:44 PM
Hill is paid to much because it is 8 mil for 5 years.
He is in the middle of the pack and comes with a very long contract.
My point to the previous question is because his contract is 2 million to high, the Pacers could have a Holiday, Conley or Step for a mere 2 million more which is nothing more then our 14 & 15th man's salary. That is quit a upgrade for nothing, the reason why is cause Hill is getting paid to much. If he was at 6 mil per then it would cost the Pacers more to get a 10 -11 mil guy. Like a Hill, Mahinmi and Young, this would cause a person to think twice on a trade cause you may be losing to much, hence, Hills contract (6mil) vs the production would be much better and the team would be losing a quality back up center.

Do any of you guys think that the Pacers could trade Hill and Pend's for Step Curry? I don't, no fat freakin chance. Therefore, Hill is paid to much and if he does no better in the future as he has done in his NBA career we will all be wishing for that 8 mil per year at years to come to end sooner rather then later. I would feel better about it if it was 16 mil for 2 yrs. rather then the 5. He can become a huge crutch very quickly. I hope he proves me wrong!!!

You say this as if we had the possibility of signing those guy. We used what resources we had to get George Hill, who has been playing very well for us. I don't understand how you can be upset that Hill is on our team for 8 mil if you would be just fine having him on our team for 6 million. We proved last year we can be successful with the guys we have against the best in the NBA. This season, our defense has improved and we're missing both our second best post defender and second best wing defender in Granger. You can't magically make people amenable to what they're worth, that's why they're called negotiations.

If you want a certain caliber level of player, you have to first have them available. The best starting-level guard available to us was George Hill, and they negotiated with him. "But he's only worth 6 million." How is that possible to know? Even if all of our starters are overpaid based on their individual performmances, I don't give a crap if they are able to churn out 50 win seasons.

Because the NBA isn't about performance per salary paid. It's about performance.

Eleazar
12-05-2012, 10:44 PM
Hill is paid to much because it is 8 mil for 5 years.
He is in the middle of the pack and comes with a very long contract.
My point to the previous question is because his contract is 2 million to high, the Pacers could have a Holiday, Conley or Step for a mere 2 million more which is nothing more then our 14 & 15th man's salary. That is quit a upgrade for nothing, the reason why is cause Hill is getting paid to much. If he was at 6 mil per then it would cost the Pacers more to get a 10 -11 mil guy. Like a Hill, Mahinmi and Young, this would cause a person to think twice on a trade cause you may be losing to much, hence, Hills contract (6mil) vs the production would be much better and the team would be losing a quality back up center.

Do any of you guys think that the Pacers could trade Hill and Pend's for Step Curry? I don't, no fat freakin chance. Therefore, Hill is paid to much and if he does no better in the future as he has done in his NBA career we will all be wishing for that 8 mil per year at years to come to end sooner rather then later. I would feel better about it if it was 16 mil for 2 yrs. rather then the 5. He can become a huge crutch very quickly. I hope he proves me wrong!!!

There is a reason why Curry makes on average $3 million more per year. Of course no one would do that because Hill + Pend =/= Curry, it isn't because Hill isn't worth his contract, it is because he isn't worth a $11 million contract, and Penderpraph doesn't make up for it. Penderpraph is the only player in that trade who is overpayed.

skyfire
12-05-2012, 10:49 PM
Hill is paid to much because it is 8 mil for 5 years.
He is in the middle of the pack and comes with a very long contract.
My point to the previous question is because his contract is 2 million to high, the Pacers could have a Holiday, Conley or Step for a mere 2 million more which is nothing more then our 14 & 15th man's salary.

The Pacers couldn't just have one of those players since all of those players resigned with their initial team before they hit the market. The Pacers could have George Hill because the Spurs didn't have the money to pay him what he is worth. Which based on those other contracts is right around his tier of PGs in the league. Curry is underpaid if he gets healthy enough, but the other two are giving their teams about the same value as Hill. 15pts a game, smart player, good defender, clutch. If we ever manage to find a better PG we could just slide him across to SG or he would be the perfect 6th man on an elite team. George Hill is getting paid market value and is performing well to that contract.

Pacer Fan
12-06-2012, 08:09 AM
Seriously, These players that was given was an example given by another poster...I only used them as an example. Obviously they are used as an example and there is no real thought that the Pacers would obtain one in any reason.

The point is, as it seems I have to go into great detail at this point...is that the Pacers will stay under the cap hold and not get in to this luxury tax line, which means that it is most critical for our FO not to overpay. 2 million to the Lakers is nothing but 2 million to the Pacers is alot. It is the difference of a Hill vs Curry when Hill is getting overpaid by 2 million.

Look at this way...Green is getting paid 3.5 mil I think, obviously that is the most the Pacer could spend when looking at our roster and salaries. If Hill got paid 2 mil less, like he should be, the Pacers could spend 5.5mil on a better player than Green. If you take our 14th and 15 mans salary away (cut them, we really don't need them) that would be in the neighborhood of 2 to 3 more million. A total of about 7.5 - 8.5 mil. This is an amount in salary that can be spent to obtain a talent that could really improve this team and possibly get them to the next level if the FO picks the right man for the team. Could this happen anyways? Certainly, but it only makes things more difficult then it already is for a team like the Pacers vs Laker.

To this day, I have never heard of a rumor or anything that has to do with Hill getting an offer somewhere else before we signed him. The team that so adores him didn't adore him enough to keep him, why, cause they had an opportunity to get better on a chance from a rookie. So, obviously the Spurs would never pay Hill 8 mil per year. It is a joke that he has this contract.

I said many times that he is a 4.5 to 5.5 mil guy and that 6 mil to keep him would be worthy. I'm looking for this team to compete at the next level and to do this from a Pacers organization where they better get the best bang for their buck more times then not and to over pay a guy that we already know what his ceiling is is crazy to me.

Look, I like Hill very much, I am happy he is a Pacers and was thrilled with the trade when it went down. I'm just not thrilled with his contract.

Hill should be competing for sixth man of the year and on most teams he would be doing just that...but for some reason our Pacers think he is a starting pg in this league when he himself has said he isn't and that he will do the best he can to learn the pg position...this just strikes me as odd once again.

Justin Tyme
12-06-2012, 08:21 AM
I'm excited to see Hill play against Lillard tonight. He (Lillard) has had a great so far, especially for a rookie, and I think Hill's veteran leadership will greatly affect Lillards play.


HUM???

eric1516
12-06-2012, 08:51 AM
HUM???

I think all in all Hill did a good job. Of course on Lillard it was a team effort as well.

J7F
12-06-2012, 07:10 PM
The thing of it is, he didn't have much choice if he wanted to get paid now. He was our restricted free agent. He could have signed elsewhere, and we could then match the contract.

I was thinking he was unrestricted... So yeah... There goes the logic in my opinion :)

J7F
12-06-2012, 07:14 PM
I think that was more of an isolated incident that was overplayed by peoples paranoia.
If you are referring to the laser tag incident I wasn't completely basing my opinion on that... But it did contribute... I just never really felt like he seemed super excited to be back home in Indy...

aamcguy
12-06-2012, 11:28 PM
I said many times that he is a 4.5 to 5.5 mil guy and that 6 mil to keep him would be worthy. I'm looking for this team to compete at the next level and to do this from a Pacers organization where they better get the best bang for their buck more times then not and to over pay a guy that we already know what his ceiling is is crazy to me.

Look, I like Hill very much, I am happy he is a Pacers and was thrilled with the trade when it went down. I'm just not thrilled with his contract.

Hill should be competing for sixth man of the year and on most teams he would be doing just that...but for some reason our Pacers think he is a starting pg in this league when he himself has said he isn't and that he will do the best he can to learn the pg position...this just strikes me as odd once again.

Just FYI, since you think he's 6th man of the year caliber, let's have the salaries of the past few 6MOTY awards:

2012 Harden: 5.8 mil on a rookie contract (now makes 13.7 mil)
2011 Odom: 8.9 mil
2010 Crawford: 7.9mil per year contract (toward the end of the contract he was making around 10 mil that year)
2009 Terry: 9.5 mil per year contract

I don't think 8 mil is really that far fetched considering you think he should be able to compete for such an award.

Justin Tyme
12-07-2012, 12:30 PM
Just FYI, since you think he's 6th man of the year caliber, let's have the salaries of the past few 6MOTY awards:

2012 Harden: 5.8 mil on a rookie contract (now makes 13.7 mil)
2011 Odom: 8.9 mil
2010 Crawford: 7.9mil per year contract (toward the end of the contract he was making around 10 mil that year)
2009 Terry: 9.5 mil per year contract

I don't think 8 mil is really that far fetched considering you think he should be able to compete for such an award.



Hill got 8 mil to be the starting PG, not a 6th Man.

Hill is more comparable to Felton and Lowry. I'd throw in Jarrett Jack too.

Felton
15/2.5/7... 42.5% FG... 39% 3PT... 68% FT... 14.85 for 4 years.

Lowry
18/5.5/6... 42% FG... 38% 3PT... 82% FT... 11.9il for 2 years.

Jack
10/3/4.5... 47% FG... 32% 3PT... 87% FT... 5.5 mil as a B/U PG.

aamcguy
12-08-2012, 08:06 PM
Hill got 8 mil to be the starting PG, not a 6th Man.

Hill is more comparable to Felton and Lowry. I'd throw in Jarrett Jack too.

Felton
15/2.5/7... 42.5% FG... 39% 3PT... 68% FT... 14.85 for 4 years.

Lowry
18/5.5/6... 42% FG... 38% 3PT... 82% FT... 11.9il for 2 years.

Jack
10/3/4.5... 47% FG... 32% 3PT... 87% FT... 5.5 mil as a B/U PG.

In my opinion, a quality starting point guard is worth more than a sixth man. I was responding to a post saying vociferously that Hill was paid too much, for the wrong role. Hill is gonna play the role that works best for our team over the long run, so the role that he is signed for is imo irrelevant when you're looking at salary. It seems silly to say somebody has the talent of a 6th man of the year player but is overpaid when in reality what he's making is right in line.

I will agree that for the cost, Felton and Lowry are playing better for the salary they're getting when you compare them to Hill. However, Felton is coming off of a subpar season plus, and Lowry has an injury riddled past. They are bargains in this NBA, not the normal price.

rexnom
12-08-2012, 08:14 PM
Hill got 8 mil to be the starting PG, not a 6th Man.

Hill is more comparable to Felton and Lowry. I'd throw in Jarrett Jack too.

Felton
15/2.5/7... 42.5% FG... 39% 3PT... 68% FT... 14.85 for 4 years.

Lowry
18/5.5/6... 42% FG... 38% 3PT... 82% FT... 11.9il for 2 years.

Jack
10/3/4.5... 47% FG... 32% 3PT... 87% FT... 5.5 mil as a B/U PG.
Felton's deal is a result of that awful year he had in Portland.

Lowry will ask for $10mil/year at least when his contract is up, don't you worry.

Heisenberg
12-08-2012, 11:33 PM
Hill's got a 3:1 assist/turnover. 11th in the league. That really surprised me, for a guy that's not a PG and all. Maybe we bid against ourselves during his RFA period and coulda played more hardball, but I don't really get how you can watch Hill this year and not think 8 mil a year is at least reasonable compensation. It's not worth complaining about at all.

Griping about Roy's money I get, his deal's looking pretty damn terrible, but complaining about Hill's is just looking for an excuse to grind your axe.

Hicks
12-08-2012, 11:37 PM
Yeah, that's about the best way I can think of to summarize Hill's contract: Probably overpaid, odd that we didn't test the market, but ultimately not enough overpaid to be complaining about it. He's a good, smart (usually), tough, two way guard who is easy to root for and a hometown guy to boot. Nothing to see here, move along!

LoneGranger33
12-08-2012, 11:45 PM
Hill's got a 3:1 assist/turnover. 11th in the league. That really surprised me, for a guy that's not a PG and all.

A.J. Price is 6th in the league in the same stat. Worse yet, Chris Duhon is 2nd. If you check out his assists per 48 minutes, he's down at 37th - behind A.J., D.J., J.J. and DC. Just goes to show you that one stat can't not tell you nothing.

I don't expect him to put up big numbers. He should be our worst starter when all is said and done, and there's nothing wrong with that considering the guys around him. He's just gotta be solid, and save for a few games/quarters he has been just that.

I won't complain about his contract any more than I have, but I will push back against All-Star talk until the numbers back it up.

Dece
12-09-2012, 12:17 AM
Yeah, that's about the best way I can think of the summarize Hill's contract: Probably overpaid, odd that we didn't test the market, but ultimately not enough overpaid to be complaining about it. He's a good, smart (usually), tough, two way guard who is easy to root for and a hometown guy to boot. Nothing to see here, move along!

Yea, I guess that's the most reasonable summation of it at the end of the day.

Justin Tyme
12-09-2012, 01:30 PM
Hill's got a 3:1 assist/turnover. 11th in the league. That really surprised me, for a guy that's not a PG and all. Maybe we bid against ourselves during his RFA period and coulda played more hardball, but I don't really get how you can watch Hill this year and not think 8 mil a year is at least reasonable compensation. It's not worth complaining about at all.

Griping about Roy's money I get, his deal's looking pretty damn terrible, but complaining about Hill's is just looking for an excuse to grind your axe.


A stat of 3-1 A/TO doesn't validate a 8 mil contract. I guess 39% FG shooting does. Why don't you comment about the 8 MIL DOLLAR MAN's last 3 outings of 18%, 38%. and 33% FG shooting. 8 Mil dollar people know the game score in the last few seconds of the game, and make better decisions when trying to win the game at the end. Until Hill starts playing like he's earning 8 mil, I'll keep saying he's not worth his contract. That he's OVERPAID!

Neither is Hibbert worth the MAX he got. They got paid the contracts they wanted now EARN them!! I've pointed out what some other PG's got paid this year, less than Hill, and they are bargains for what they are producing for those teams who gave them the contracts. Even though I feel both Hill and Hibbert got overpaid, they need to produce to justify their contracts. They aren't, and that's the problem.

I never complained that Granger got overpaid by Bird. Bird negotiated a good contract unlike what Walsh has. Compare Rudy Gay's contract to Granger's contract, I'm a Rudy Gay fan, but his contract is terrible. GAY GOT OVERPAID just like Hibbert and Hill got overpaid.

Marc Gasol, who I'd take in a heartbeat over Hibbert, got a MAX contract, and he's producing to justify giving it to him. Barkley stated on tv last week he felt Gasol was the 2nd best Center in the NBA. Very valid comment as far as I'm concerned. Hibbert has a way to go to get past Gasol let alone Howard.

If Hibbert and Hill don't like the comments about them from the fans, then do something about their play. It's just that simple.

Hicks
12-09-2012, 01:43 PM
A stat of 3-1 A/TO doesn't validate a 8 mil contract. I guess 39% FG shooting does. Why don't you comment about the 8 MIL DOLLAR MAN's last 3 outings of 18%, 38%. and 33% FG shooting. 8 Mil dollar people know the game score in the last few seconds of the game, and make better decisions when trying to win the game at the end. Until Hill starts playing like he's earning 8 mil, I'll keep saying he's not worth his contract. That he's OVERPAID!

Neither is Hibbert worth the MAX he got. They got paid the contracts they wanted now EARN them!! I've pointed out what some other PG's got paid this year, less than Hill, and they are bargains for what they are producing for those teams who gave them the contracts. Even though I feel both Hill and Hibbert got overpaid, they need to produce to justify their contracts. They aren't, and that's the problem.

I never complained that Granger got overpaid by Bird. Bird negotiated a good contract unlike what Walsh has. Compare Rudy Gay's contract to Granger's contract, I'm a Rudy Gay fan, but his contract is terrible. GAY GOT OVERPAID just like Hibbert and Hill got overpaid.

Marc Gasol, who I'd take in a heartbeat over Hibbert, got a MAX contract, and he's producing to justify giving it to him. Barkley stated on tv last week he felt Gasol was the 2nd best Center in the NBA. Very valid comment as far as I'm concerned. Hibbert has a way to go to get past Gasol let alone Howard.

If Hibbert and Hill don't like the comments about them from the fans, then do something about their play. It's just that simple.

This may read as being rude, but I don't mean it to be/that way:

Why do you whine so much about this? Does it make you feel better? I'm honestly curious about this.

aamcguy
12-09-2012, 02:04 PM
A stat of 3-1 A/TO doesn't validate a 8 mil contract. I guess 39% FG shooting does. Why don't you comment about the 8 MIL DOLLAR MAN's last 3 outings of 18%, 38%. and 33% FG shooting. 8 Mil dollar people know the game score in the last few seconds of the game, and make better decisions when trying to win the game at the end. Until Hill starts playing like he's earning 8 mil, I'll keep saying he's not worth his contract. That he's OVERPAID!

Neither is Hibbert worth the MAX he got. They got paid the contracts they wanted now EARN them!! I've pointed out what some other PG's got paid this year, less than Hill, and they are bargains for what they are producing for those teams who gave them the contracts. Even though I feel both Hill and Hibbert got overpaid, they need to produce to justify their contracts. They aren't, and that's the problem.

I never complained that Granger got overpaid by Bird. Bird negotiated a good contract unlike what Walsh has. Compare Rudy Gay's contract to Granger's contract, I'm a Rudy Gay fan, but his contract is terrible. GAY GOT OVERPAID just like Hibbert and Hill got overpaid.

Marc Gasol, who I'd take in a heartbeat over Hibbert, got a MAX contract, and he's producing to justify giving it to him. Barkley stated on tv last week he felt Gasol was the 2nd best Center in the NBA. Very valid comment as far as I'm concerned. Hibbert has a way to go to get past Gasol let alone Howard.

If Hibbert and Hill don't like the comments about them from the fans, then do something about their play. It's just that simple.

I wasn't aware that there was an obvious line where a player is/isn't worth an arbitrary value of money. What exactly is the line for 8 million? for 7? for 6? If we want a player that's slightly worse, what's the hard line for 5 million? But wait, age/temperament/experience/history/playstyle/potential also come into play. So please give me a mix that would work for 8 million.

You can't, because there's no way to do it. NBA execs can't. They speculate as much as any fans of the team, but they've proven that they can make good decisions after working in a related field or it wouldn't be their job to speculate. In another sense, it's their job if they fail. They make their big bucks, but if they are consistently wrong they lose their job.
So they have pressure whereas fans sitting at home getting angry about how somebody is using someone else's money do not.

Dece
12-09-2012, 02:04 PM
This may read as being rude, but I don't mean it to be/that way:

Why do you whine so much about this? Does it make you feel better? I'm honestly curious about this.

What it comes down to is this: do you believe fans can impact change?

If the answer is yes, the people out there trying to convince you the grass isn't so green are trying to get you on their side so that a louder collective voice of fans expressing displeasure can lead to change. If enough fans accept or approve of the job the management is doing, they have no incentive to change their behavior. They will shrug and say, well, the customers are ok with the product so I guess we did a good enough job. Why pay for a new coach? Fans are happy enough, whatever. Why try to bring in better players, that'd cost us more money, fans are coming anyway no reason to increase expenses. Why pay for a new GM, this safely mediocre product keeps our finances afloat and the fans aren't upset enough about it to cost us revenue.

If the answer is no, complaining is still cathartic at times.

Justin Tyme
12-09-2012, 07:25 PM
This may read as being rude, but I don't mean it to be/that way:

Why do you whine so much about this? Does it make you feel better? I'm honestly curious about this.


LOL! No, it doesn't make me feel better. It's just frustrating to see Walsh overpay. Yes, I realize that's an opinion that not very one agrees with. I've put forth my reasons why I feel this way. I've shown what other PG's got this off season, less money and producing more than Hill. Maybe, it's that Checkbook Donnie was the one who was in charge of Hill getting his contract. I was extemely vocal about not wanting Walsh back for this exact reason. Maybe, it's a number of things about Hill getting 8 mil. All, I can say and truly feel is Hill got OVERPAID. I'm not saying Hill's a bad player. I'm just saying he got overpaid.

Even saying and feeling that way, NO ONE wishes more than I that Hill proves me wrong over his contract, but I seriously doubt it happens. Personally, I don't feel I'm wrong just like I wasn't wrong when Bird overpaid Foster with his history of health issues... TWICE.

Hicks
12-10-2012, 11:12 AM
Okay, so you keep feeling frustrated by it and thus keep complaining about it. Understandable. But at what point do you just accept it for what it is and move on?

Ace E.Anderson
12-10-2012, 11:27 AM
Okay, so you keep feeling frustrated by it and thus keep complaining about it. Understandable. But at what point do you just accept it for what it is and move on?

Or better yet, explain what it is that Hill needs to do in order for you to feel his contract is justified?


A stat of 3-1 A/TO doesn't validate a 8 mil contract. I guess 39% FG shooting does. Why don't you comment about the 8 MIL DOLLAR MAN's last 3 outings of 18%, 38%. and 33% FG shooting. 8 Mil dollar people know the game score in the last few seconds of the game, and make better decisions when trying to win the game at the end. Until Hill starts playing like he's earning 8 mil, I'll keep saying he's not worth his contract. That he's OVERPAID!

okay he's shot poorly his last 3 games, but the 3 games before that he was great. You can't go off and say he's overpaid the second he has a bad game or two, just like somebody can't say he's worth every penny after he's had a few good games. For his career, G.Hill has shot a very respectable %, so there's no reason to believe that once (if) he get's a backup and he's able to play less minutes, his shooting %'s will go back to normal.

Justin Tyme
12-10-2012, 07:49 PM
Okay, so you keep feeling frustrated by it and thus keep complaining about it. Understandable. But at what point do you just accept it for what it is and move on?


When Hill earns the contract he got, and right now he's not earning it. Only Hill can put my ragging on his contract to an end. His play either gives me reason to be upset or makes me mute. It's up to Hill's play, and he controls his play.

Justin Tyme
12-10-2012, 07:55 PM
there's no reason to believe that once (if) he get's a backup and he's able to play less minutes, his shooting %'s will go back to normal.

I would believe it should, so let's hope so. I hoping Hansbro or another player can play well enough to give DWest more rest too.

aamcguy
12-10-2012, 08:55 PM
When Hill earns the contract he got, and right now he's not earning it. Only Hill can put my ragging on his contract to an end. His play either gives me reason to be upset or makes me mute. It's up to Hill's play, and he controls his play.

You keep avoiding answering what it is you are looking for. At what point will you be okay with his contract? Does he need to score more? Or just more efficiently? Does he have to have a requisite number of assists? You keep saying he isn't doing it now, but I assume you have some sort of ridiculous threshold where he becomes worth his contract.

When in fact the difference between him in the game and not in the game is almost as strong as the difference between PG or West in/out of the game. Regardless of the statistics they are boasting.

Nuntius
12-10-2012, 10:49 PM
What it comes down to is this: do you believe fans can impact change?

If the answer is yes, the people out there trying to convince you the grass isn't so green are trying to get you on their side so that a louder collective voice of fans expressing displeasure can lead to change. If enough fans accept or approve of the job the management is doing, they have no incentive to change their behavior. They will shrug and say, well, the customers are ok with the product so I guess we did a good enough job. Why pay for a new coach? Fans are happy enough, whatever. Why try to bring in better players, that'd cost us more money, fans are coming anyway no reason to increase expenses. Why pay for a new GM, this safely mediocre product keeps our finances afloat and the fans aren't upset enough about it to cost us revenue.

If the answer is no, complaining is still cathartic at times.

Good point. The answer is definitely no, though.

I've seen it a lot of times. Fans who try to "react" by booing are not making their teams better. They are making them worse. I've seen numerous teams collapse due to such kind of fan "support". The basketball league of my country only has 2 teams that can compete in the Euroleague level. The other ones are bankrupt. Why? Because their fans tried to boycot to express their displeasure. And thus, the team collapsed.

There's only a single way that a fan can contribute to the betterment and the success of his team. To support it!

Hicks
12-10-2012, 10:52 PM
When Hill earns the contract he got, and right now he's not earning it. Only Hill can put my ragging on his contract to an end. His play either gives me reason to be upset or makes me mute. It's up to Hill's play, and he controls his play.

So you don't see a point in the future where you just accept that he's overpaid and let it go?

Justin Tyme
12-11-2012, 09:00 AM
You keep avoiding answering what it is you are looking for. At what point will you be okay with his contract? Does he need to score more? Or just more efficiently? Does he have to have a requisite number of assists? You keep saying he isn't doing it now, but I assume you have some sort of ridiculous threshold where he becomes worth his contract.

When in fact the difference between him in the game and not in the game is almost as strong as the difference between PG or West in/out of the game. Regardless of the statistics they are boasting.


One of the biggest problems I have with posters on forums is they never answer my questions, but it is expected of me to answer their questions. It's not a 1 way street folks. I'll answer your question not that I feel I'm obligated to do so, since seldom does anyone answer my questions that I propose to them.

George Hill is not a PG. He's a combo guard. Please spare me the spiel about the NBA moving away from true PG towards different type of PG. Have you truly looked at Hill's stats? Oops, I asked a question.

Hill averages 13 shots per game at 39% FG. Out of those 13 shots 5 of them are 3Pters, that's almost 40% of the shots he takes. He makes 1.6 out of 5 shots at 32%. ( I can remember when Tinsley got raked for shooting 32%) Yet, Hill only shoots 3 FT per game. That says he's not driving to the basket, but standing around the arch too much. Hill shoots over 80% from the FT line, yet he doesn't max his FT% asset. He needs to penetrate more and either dish off for an ast, or drive to the rim for a basket. If this happens, his FT attempts will increase.

Hill is averaging 5 APG. He needs to be at 7-8 APG. You can't get asts if you are looking for a 3 pt shot. As a PG, his job is to get his team mates involved and make them better. Sorry, but that's not the case. Hill doesn't have a true PG mentality as being a combo guard.

His "D" was touted to be really good when Bird traded for him. Compared to TJ, DC, DJ, and others it is good. But what's that really saying? It's like saying player x is the top scorer on a poor team. Someone has to score the points. The backcourt "D" isn't that good. If a team has a good b/c, the Pacers "D" suffers due to poor b/c "D" play. That's on Hill.

I could continue, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. Hill just isn't worth the 8 mil contract he got. Save yourself the time and energy with any apologist Hill responses. I've seen them all by now.

When I came to PD 4 plus years ago, I stated I never expected to convince others to change their views, but to express my opinions. I don't care if you agree or not with my opinions as it's how I feel. You and others are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. AND until George Hill's game improves to where he's earning his contract I will voice my disapproval of his overpaid contract. It's my opinion, and I feel it is a very valid one!

Justin Tyme
12-11-2012, 09:20 AM
So you don't see a point in the future where you just accept that he's overpaid and let it go?


It's not impossible just highly improbable.

Ace E.Anderson
12-11-2012, 09:53 AM
One of the biggest problems I have with posters on forums is they never answer my questions, but it is expected of me to answer their questions. It's not a 1 way street folks. I'll answer your question not that I feel I'm obligated to do so, since seldom does anyone answer my questions that I propose to them.

George Hill is not a PG. He's a combo guard. Please spare me the spiel about the NBA moving away from true PG towards different type of PG. Have you truly looked at Hill's stats? Oops, I asked a question.

Hill averages 13 shots per game at 39% FG. Out of those 13 shots 5 of them are 3Pters, that's almost 40% of the shots he takes. He makes 1.6 out of 5 shots at 32%. ( I can remember when Tinsley got raked for shooting 32%) Yet, Hill only shoots 3 FT per game. That says he's not driving to the basket, but standing around the arch too much. Hill shoots over 80% from the FT line, yet he doesn't max his FT% asset. He needs to penetrate more and either dish off for an ast, or drive to the rim for a basket. If this happens, his FT attempts will increase.

Hill is averaging 5 APG. He needs to be at 7-8 APG. You can't get asts if you are looking for a 3 pt shot. As a PG, his job is to get his team mates involved and make them better. Sorry, but that's not the case. Hill doesn't have a true PG mentality as being a combo guard.

His "D" was touted to be really good when Bird traded for him. Compared to TJ, DC, DJ, and others it is good. But what's that really saying? It's like saying player x is the top scorer on a poor team. Someone has to score the points. The backcourt "D" isn't that good. If a team has a good b/c, the Pacers "D" suffers due to poor b/c "D" play. That's on Hill.

I could continue, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. Hill just isn't worth the 8 mil contract he got. Save yourself the time and energy with any apologist Hill responses. I've seen them all by now.

When I came to PD 4 plus years ago, I stated I never expected to convince others to change their views, but to express my opinions. I don't care if you agree or not with my opinions as it's how I feel. You and others are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. AND until George Hill's game improves to where he's earning his contract I will voice my disapproval of his overpaid contract. It's my opinion, and I feel it is a very valid one!

Have you ever considered maybe you just have a different definition of PG than others? Outside of the superstar PG's (Rondo, CP3, D-Will) there prob isn't a PG in the league that could average 8+ assists with this Pacer team and with our offensive system.

I agree that he's shooting way too much from the outside this year. He definitely needs to take it to the basket alot more. I also agree that the PG is the head of the defense, but I disagree wholeheartedly that GH is playing bad D. We either lead the league or are near the top of the league in most statistical categories. It's hard to do that (dare I say impossible to do that) if you have poor defense from the PG position.

All in all, I think it's much too early to grade GH's performance. DG got off to an even worse shooting start last season, and wound up finishing the year very strong. I wouldn't be surprised if GH did the same.

But in the end you're right, we (Hill "apologists") should just agree to disagree b/c your mind is made up for now that Hill isn't worth 8 mil. And there's nothing wrong with that

Nuntius
12-11-2012, 10:26 AM
Do you guys really believe that our system is fit for a true PG?

Eleazar
12-11-2012, 11:43 AM
It's not impossible just highly improbable.

What a way to live, as vain as can be.

Nuntius
12-11-2012, 11:47 AM
What a way to live, as vain as can be.

Nah, don't go there, mate. It's his choice after all :/

xIndyFan
12-11-2012, 12:23 PM
So you don't see a point in the future where you just accept that he's overpaid and let it go?

Until someone other than Donnie Walsh is the GM that signs him. JT hates Walsh and any move impacted by Donnie. If you keep that fact in mind, all of JT's posts make perfect sense.

aamcguy
12-11-2012, 12:24 PM
One of the biggest problems I have with posters on forums is they never answer my questions, but it is expected of me to answer their questions. It's not a 1 way street folks. I'll answer your question not that I feel I'm obligated to do so, since seldom does anyone answer my questions that I propose to them.

George Hill is not a PG. He's a combo guard. Please spare me the spiel about the NBA moving away from true PG towards different type of PG. Have you truly looked at Hill's stats? Oops, I asked a question.

Hill averages 13 shots per game at 39% FG. Out of those 13 shots 5 of them are 3Pters, that's almost 40% of the shots he takes. He makes 1.6 out of 5 shots at 32%. ( I can remember when Tinsley got raked for shooting 32%) Yet, Hill only shoots 3 FT per game. That says he's not driving to the basket, but standing around the arch too much. Hill shoots over 80% from the FT line, yet he doesn't max his FT% asset. He needs to penetrate more and either dish off for an ast, or drive to the rim for a basket. If this happens, his FT attempts will increase.

Hill is averaging 5 APG. He needs to be at 7-8 APG. You can't get asts if you are looking for a 3 pt shot. As a PG, his job is to get his team mates involved and make them better. Sorry, but that's not the case. Hill doesn't have a true PG mentality as being a combo guard.

His "D" was touted to be really good when Bird traded for him. Compared to TJ, DC, DJ, and others it is good. But what's that really saying? It's like saying player x is the top scorer on a poor team. Someone has to score the points. The backcourt "D" isn't that good. If a team has a good b/c, the Pacers "D" suffers due to poor b/c "D" play. That's on Hill.

I could continue, but you get the gist of what I'm saying. Hill just isn't worth the 8 mil contract he got. Save yourself the time and energy with any apologist Hill responses. I've seen them all by now.

When I came to PD 4 plus years ago, I stated I never expected to convince others to change their views, but to express my opinions. I don't care if you agree or not with my opinions as it's how I feel. You and others are entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. AND until George Hill's game improves to where he's earning his contract I will voice my disapproval of his overpaid contract. It's my opinion, and I feel it is a very valid one!

Your opinion is valid that he is overpaid, but not based on the NBA. Seeing as though the only measurement for price on a player is what the going price for similar players is, Hill is actually priced well.

For 8 million dollars, you're basically expecting chris paul numbers minus one assist. Paul makes almost 18 mil, btw. Here's the list of players with more than 6.5 APG this year and their salaries:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-4zHyVk1aHNw/UMdvH9bpdgI/AAAAAAAAAVA/QNQks2N4jkU/w377-h210-n-k/table.GIF

If you're going to use stats to back up how you feel, please understand that they don't. If Hill were capable of 8 APG this year, he would have cost a whole lot more. About 11 mil per year, which is what all the PG such as Lawson/Curry/Holiday are getting. All who fit perfectly into what you think is worth 8 million. It's your opinion to keep, sure. But understand that people are fighting with you because that opinion means you think basically every point guard in the league is overpaid.

Justin Tyme
12-11-2012, 12:33 PM
What a way to live, as vain as can be.


Being a little vain isn't all bad, it pushes some to be better. Achievers in life all have a streak of vainess in them. It's how we deal with being vain that counts. Some of us can deal with it better than others can.

Justin Tyme
12-11-2012, 12:44 PM
Until someone other than Donnie Walsh is the GM that signs him. JT hates Walsh and any move impacted by Donnie. If you keep that fact in mind, all of JT's posts make perfect sense.


You have some validity to your statement, but I don't HATE Walsh. I dislike him as the Pacers GM. I was a fan of what Walsh was able to do in NY. I just didn't want to see him in charge of the Pacers again. Any team would be fine with me as long as it's not the Pacers. I didn't like how he left the Pacers, and didn't want to see a redeux.

Nuntius
12-11-2012, 01:00 PM
Being a little vain isn't all bad, it pushes some to be better. Achievers in life all have a streak of vainess in them. It's how we deal with being vain that counts. Some of us can deal with it better than others can.

Actually, no. Vain people usually fall flat and fail because they tend to think too highly of themselves. The achievers in life are usually those that while confident are modest enough to understand their shortcomings and overcome them.

Justin Tyme
12-11-2012, 01:14 PM
Your opinion is valid that he is overpaid, but not based on the NBA. Seeing as though the only measurement for price on a player is what the going price for similar players is, Hill is actually priced well.

For 8 million dollars, you're basically expecting chris paul numbers minus one assist. Paul makes almost 18 mil, btw. Here's the list of players with more than 6.5 APG this year and their salaries:

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-4zHyVk1aHNw/UMdvH9bpdgI/AAAAAAAAAVA/QNQks2N4jkU/w377-h210-n-k/table.GIF

If you're going to use stats to back up how you feel, please understand that they don't. If Hill were capable of 8 APG this year, he would have cost a whole lot more. About 11 mil per year, which is what all the PG such as Lawson/Curry/Holiday are getting. All who fit perfectly into what you think is worth 8 million. It's your opinion to keep, sure. But understand that people are fighting with you because that opinion means you think basically every point guard in the league is overpaid.


Remember, I said 7-8 asts. I knew when I put 8 Asts someone would jump on it. I should have said 7 ast.

I've already posted PGs that were given contracts this past off season who got less money and are producing better. Hill's contract is what it is, and I can't change it. I just don't have to like it. Bottom line is I feel Walsh overpaid to keep Hill, and left money on the table that could have been used in upgrading the bench. I realize my opinion isn't a popular one, but it's just how I personally feel. If I felt any other way, I wouldn't be true to myself.

I also feel Hibbert is overpaid. Yes, Hibbert signed Portland's offer sheet which Walsh matched. It doesn't mean Hibbert isn't overpaid.

To the bench: my problem with the bench signings were that they were fully guaranteed contracts w/o any Team Options. Walsh dug the Pacers a hole, b/c if Mahinmi and Green don't pan out the Pacers are stuck with them for the length of their contract.

I don't fault Walsh on signing Augustin. At the time, I felt Augustin was a good pickup. It just hasn't turned out that way. Under the current circumstance, Augustin's 1 year expiring contract comes off the books at seasons end. (See I'm not all anti-Walsh, LOL!)

My problem with Augustin not working out is it's playing Hill too much each game, b/c he doesn't have a good b/u than can give him the rest he needs. He'll be wore out before the trade deadline arrives. Why pay 8 mil and ruin your investment? This is why it's imperative for Walsh to make a trade NOW for a PG.

aamcguy
12-11-2012, 01:36 PM
Remember, I said 7-8 asts. I knew when I put 8 Asts someone would jump on it. I should have said 7 ast.

I've already posted PGs that were given contracts this past off season who got less money and are producing better. Hill's contract is what it is, and I can't change it. I just don't have to like it. Bottom line is I feel Walsh overpaid to keep Hill, and left money on the table that could have been used in upgrading the bench. I realize my opinion isn't a popular one, but it's just how I personally feel. If I felt any other way, I wouldn't be true to myself.

I also feel Hibbert is overpaid. Yes, Hibbert signed Portland's offer sheet which Walsh matched. It doesn't mean Hibbert isn't overpaid.

To the bench: my problem with the bench signings were that they were fully guaranteed contracts w/o any Team Options. Walsh dug the Pacers a hole, b/c if Mahinmi and Green don't pan out the Pacers are stuck with them for the length of their contract.

I don't fault Walsh on signing Augustin. At the time, I felt Augustin was a good pickup. It just hasn't turned out that way. Under the current circumstance, Augustin's 1 year expiring contract comes off the books at seasons end. (See I'm not all anti-Walsh, LOL!)

My problem with Augustin not working out is it's playing Hill too much each game, b/c he doesn't have a good b/u than can give him the rest he needs. He'll be wore out before the trade deadline arrives. Why pay 8 mil and ruin your investment? This is why it's imperative for Walsh to make a trade NOW for a PG.

Nothing in my post was predicated on the fact that you included 8 assists. When I said Chris Paul, I was referencing FG%, 3PT%, assists, points, everything. And there is only 1 point guard in the league not on a rookie contract that gets 6.5 assists or more with a lower salary than Hill's. And Mo Williams is the only one even close to 8 mil at 8.5.

I initially believed Hill was overpaid before the season started. But I believe he is worth it now. And I based my opinion on how the team plays with him out there on the floor, not on his individual stats. I do agree that we could have a slight downgrade and only have to pay 5 million a year somewhere else. But is that player available? Maybe not. But we definitely can't afford a better one with our team, and I think we need to have a player of Hill's caliber to succeed with our roster.