"As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."
The whole Lance as a point guard debate is a waste of time anyway. What we have is two guards with complimentary skill sets, neither is quite the prototypical point guard, but Hill brings that steady presence (and can play off the ball if needed) and Lance is absolutely a playmaker. We are getting everything we need out of our starting guards, their specific positions are irrelevant.
Last edited by Infinite MAN_force; 12-18-2013 at 12:20 AM.
I'm on the fence about the matter. On one hand I look at Hill's low statistical production in nearly every category and think he's leaving something on the table but on the other I realize it is most likely by design. There simply isn't enough assists/rebound/points left over for him by the time the other 4 in our lineup have taken first crack. The only gripe I would have with him so far is his shooting percentages and game to game consistency. 40% from the field and 38% from three isn't gonna cut it. And he's been in the league a while longer than Lance so these 4 point/3 asst/2 rebounds on 40% shooting games shouldn't be happening as often as they are.
I'd have a hard time giving up Hill to keep Lance. I want to keep Lance but there is a limit and I think some over value him on here. No way would I want Larry to pay Lance more then Hill is making and I don't think he would. I believe Larry when he said that he'll make Lance a fair offer but he's prepared to go in another direction if he needs to. If we had to give up Hill we'd better get some value back in the form of a decent future first round pick and not just move him as a salary dump after what we gave up for him.
Bird has said the he thinks George Hill is a lot like Dennis Johnson. There is no way Bird will trade Hill. I look for Stephenson and Hill to be the starting back court for the next few years and share the PG duties.
Anyone that thinks Granger will be back with the Pacers next year needs to think again. He will sign elsewhere whether he is completely healthy or not. The Pacers simply do not have the money to resign Stephenson and Granger...they will pick the healthier and younger Stephenson. You can count on Hill, Stephenson, George, Hibbert, and West to be the starters until West's contract expires in 2016.
I look for Copeland or OJ to be moved either this year or in the summer. It also wouldn't surprise me if Ian or Solo got moved sometime as well.
I like having multiple playmakers on the floor. So I don't want to see a lineup of Lance, PG, DG, West and Roy. I want a point guard on the floor. Besides who is going to guard the smaller and quicker point guards if we go with lance at the point.
I like having Hill or Watson in the game.
As a purely practical matter, IMO you cannot just turn to this in mid season anyway. All training camp and preseason and the first 30 games or so we have had a point guard on the floor and now to change it on a team that will be 24-6 or so, would be a bad idea. So even if you want to do this, you do it at the start of training camp next year.
I can't see Hill being traded this season. I think it would mess with the team to much. The only players I see as trading chips is a package of Solo and Ian. Even though I wasn't for the overpaid Copeland, I think he could be in the future plans still as a backup 4 and I honestly don't see Bird trading him this season after getting him as a UFA, which is rare for the Pacers. Now if a trade with Cope package is just to good to pass up, then ok, I don't see it tho.
OJ is cheap and plays hard on defense and may pay dividends just guarding DWade in the playoffs at times, so I don't believe he is going anywhere.
Danny is better off here if he can or can't prove his value. Either way, I don't see him traded.
Now, this summer is a whole new ball game and we need to see the season and playoffs before knowing exactly what needs to be done.
Just my 2 cents.
Frank Vogel says "Killer instinct, start strong, build a lead and then step on their throats."
Trading George Hill and moving Lance to the pg position would be a pretty major shakeup, IMO. The last thing that a 20-4 team that went to Game 7 of the ECF's needs is a major shakeup. This lethal starting lineup is going to remain intact. We need moves like what brought in Watson and Scola (though I understand that trades like that don't come around everyday).
I'm still seeing "bad Lance" too often to want him as the primary facilitator, especially since (to my eyes) it happens most when he is in a position to set the tone for a play. B'"Bad Lance" doing something silly when receiving the ball at the end of a play is bad for him - "bad Lance" doing something silly that keeps another player from being successful could be bad for everyone.
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...
Also maybe if our record was 9-15, you might want to make a significant change like this. But we are 20-4.
"We've got to be very clear about this. We don't want our players hanging around with murderers," said Larry Bird, Pacers president.
Told you Hill'd be the new whipping boy.
Regardless of what role Danny takes if / when healthy, who could we possibly trade G. Hill for that would be an 'upgrade' at backup SG? When he's not the primary ball handler, G. Hill is one of the top starting SGs in the league. CJ / Scola / Danny or CJ / Scola / G. Hill to round out an eight-man rotation? Bring on the playoffs.
I do think we'd go for a backup C if we can get one, but not at the cost of any of those eight players.
Last edited by kester99; 12-18-2013 at 10:20 AM.
[~]) ... Cheers! Go Pacers!
I love George Hill and all, but I don't think it would actually be easy to move him if we wanted to. He is playing well under his salary right now and I would think there would be a plethora of good point guards available at that rate.
I'm happy to stick with him, but his inability to see the open cutter is maddening at times.
Why all of the hate for G. Hill? I think he has done a great job this year. Hopefully we keep all of our team intact because their chemistry is getting better and better. I for sure could not see Danny at the 2 guard spot. He might do well on the offensive end but he could not guard most of the 2 guards in the NBA.
Also, I'm pumped about Granger coming back in less than 48 hours. I will join the bandwagon when he proves to me that he can stay on the court.
The problem is that when Hill has a bad game, he has a completely bad game and this season he's had more than anyone else on the team. I don't think a trade will solve the problem but he needs to step his game up if the Pacers want to capture the #1 seed.
Does anyone else worry that G. Hill is not 100% healthy? I don't really zero in a particular player in a game, but George H. just does not seem to be the same player as last year. Hope I'm wrong.