IT for George Hill? Thoughts?

IT for George Hill?

  • Total voters
    24
VF21 said:
I would vote NO 10,000 times if I could. Bringing IT back here would pretty kill the Kings. I simply cannot see any way he would/could fit in with Fox, Bogs, Jackson, WCS, etc.
Click to expand...
Give me Cleveland's pick and I'll have no problem waiving him so he can go somewhere else.
 
VF21 said:
They aren't gonna give up that pick for George Hill.
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about New Jersey's pick, I'm talking about their own. I would think if (and we know about "if") they think he's disrupting team play then it would be a way of removing him without the blood being on their hands. Otherwise I don't touch him. Their choice.
 
well I am sure there is a team out there that would like to have IT. So it could be part of a 3 team deal.
 
Imagine how.... excited Grant would be to get his little hero back. Disgusting.

And hell no. I didn't want IT then, and I don't want him now. He was legit great in Boston.... But the second he loses a fraction of a step, he won't be an NBA player anymore. Couple that with hip surgery, his future probably isn't too hot.
 
Isnt IT a pending free agent ?

Jeez, swing that trade to free us from Hills contract and bench IT.

We aint going to resign him but it makes a lot of sense from a cap front. Banish him if anything happens, there shouldnt be any issues, he is a professional.
 
whozit said:
I'm not talking about New Jersey's pick, I'm talking about their own. I would think if (and we know about "if") they think he's disrupting team play then it would be a way of removing him without the blood being on their hands. Otherwise I don't touch him. Their choice.
Click to expand...
They won't give up their own pick for Hill. It's reported that they tried to get DeAndre Jordan with that pick.. so there's no way they're offering it for Hill.
 
206Fan said:
They won't give up their own pick for Hill. It's reported that they tried to get DeAndre Jordan with that pick.. so there's no way they're offering it for Hill.
Click to expand...
The Kings don't have to do something just to do something. I would prefer to have one or more of the vets moved but am perfectly fine standing pat. Vlade has been accused of making moves out of desperation, no reason to reinforce that. He can't be seen as caving. IT is their problem (reportedly), I'm not in the mood to do favors that don't get repaid.
 
IT would be no different than including Frye in a deal. It's a little chunk of Hills contract off the cap next summer, nothing more. The Kings would still have to take on some salary in the deal to make it work. If the Cavs are looking at IT as some sort of value piece that allows them to not include their first then the Kings say no thank you. And if the Kings like it because they think IT is the missing piece then we be in trouble!
 
Kings would still have to free a roster spot. So no.

If they are going to do it then get one of the cavs players going to portland for harkless
 
Nah and I'm one of the biggest IT fans out there. Just no use for him anymore when we have plenty of other guys who we want to get ball-handler reps
 
Sac.1989 said:
Isnt IT a pending free agent ?

Jeez, swing that trade to free us from Hills contract and bench IT.

We aint going to resign him but it makes a lot of sense from a cap front. Banish him if anything happens, there shouldnt be any issues, he is a professional.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't IT, and you just looked at "player x" and his history with each of the teams he's been with, would you still say that?

IT will not sit still (pun kind of intended) for being benched. His ego simply will not allow it. I've said this about him since he was first drafted by the Kings: He is his own worst enemy. His intense competitive nature (the one that allowed him to compete and succeed despite his size) is the very thing that keeps him from understanding that he can be just as effective in a supporting role as he thinks he can be as a starter. You bring that mindset to a team with a bunch of kids, and it's a recipe for disaster. It wouldn't be fair to him, to the other players, or to the fans. It's a lose-lose situation.
 
My caveat on this would be to strongly consider trading for him and then releasing him. Lots of teams could use him and could off set the costs. Takes us back to an open position for next season and salary available. Before I agreed to plan and wanted to sit in a long conversation with the coach Mason and Fox. The only way I would want him back on this team is if his role is clear to himself and those around him.

EDIT
After some thought I really wish IT the very best and love and respect his game but the only way I am ok with trading for him IS to wave him and open up room/money going forward.

It struck me that the reasn so many of our better picks in the past decade played so much Iso has been as much about trust as surrounding talent. This crop of young men do not have that problem, they are sharing the ball and seem to be in the process of building a team culture that depends on ball movement and trust. I don't see IT as a good fit, but again I wish him well.
 
Last edited:
VF21 said:
If it wasn't IT, and you just looked at "player x" and his history with each of the teams he's been with, would you still say that?

IT will not sit still (pun kind of intended) for being benched. His ego simply will not allow it. I've said this about him since he was first drafted by the Kings: He is his own worst enemy. His intense competitive nature (the one that allowed him to compete and succeed despite his size) is the very thing that keeps him from understanding that he can be just as effective in a supporting role as he thinks he can be as a starter. You bring that mindset to a team with a bunch of kids, and it's a recipe for disaster. It wouldn't be fair to him, to the other players, or to the fans. It's a lose-lose situation.
Click to expand...

bring him in, the moment it goes south, set him free.

we need to get hill off the books and this is a perfect way forward that doesnt see us take on any salary into next season.

IT will happily leave, he is in a contract year. He has to play and we can use that against him.

I dont want shump or thompson or any of these movable pieces who arent really moveable. We can get out of this real quick if we swap Hill for IT and release IT telling him if he's here we will sit him in his contract year.
 
Last edited:
I'm barely a Yes. I'd be very concerned about Thomas' ego causing trouble on such a growing team. Beyond that I think the talent and contract is definitely an improvement.
 
I don't think this is a good idea. I'd do it if there was a larger perk in return as well possibly, but find it highly unlikely we get anything else worth mentioning.
 
Trade won't work, but if it did, I would do it. Hill is not part of the future anyway. We get out of his contract a year earlier, free up a roster space in summer, and bring more stability to the roster.

Love IT, and feel bad for him. Got hurt and traded before he was eligible for his big payday, and with the market shrinking, and his reputation taking a hit, he might get lowballed. We are clearly going forward with Fox at 1, and IT is too good and expensive to play backup anymore.

That said, I doubt the Cavs trade him. If Bron leaves next year (not a certainty I think. Which team has the cap to offer him the max, and still put a contender around him), IT along with the Nets pick (and probably Love) could be a valuable piece to build around.
 
For me it is such an easy pass. I know his stats. I know Aaron Bruski loves him. I know a lot of fans love him.

I have never been a great big fan, and I would be very concerned about a player who has been rejected by Sacramento, the Phoenix, then Boston, and now Cleveland. All within a few years of each other.

No matter how you slice it - this is a guy who people decide to move on from, very quickly.... for whatever reason.

hot potato - not it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top