Hill picks Phoenix

[sly fly]

I'm sorry, but there's no way that Stoudemire/Marion/Hill/Bell/Nash is a championship starting lineup, unless the bench is made up of Kevin Garnett, Ben Wallace, Gary Payton of ten years ago, and Jesus Christ. For those of you who have forgotten the San Antonio series, it wasn't a lack of offensive firepower that doomed the Suns.

If the Suns had enough offensive firepower, then what the hell happened in Game 5? Having a Grant Hill (as added insurance depth) would have really helped when PHX lost Amare and Diaw.

 

[Covert Rain]

I'm sorry, but there's no way that Stoudemire/Marion/Hill/Bell/Nash is a championship starting lineup, unless the bench is made up of Kevin Garnett, Ben Wallace, Gary Payton of ten years ago, and Jesus Christ. For those of you who have forgotten the San Antonio series, it wasn't a lack of offensive firepower that doomed the Suns.

Defense was definitely a factor but in case you forgot this team went through LONG stretches in which they could not create shots or make a bucket. Making the San Antonio spurs keep up the defensive pressure for longer periods of time (shortening their bench) no doubt helps during a game.

Asking Hill to run the offense while Nash gets mugged is way too optimistic. The reason Nash is a two-time MVP is that no one else can come close to doing the things that he does. The entire D'Antoni "system" is based on Nash's brilliance. Transfer Nash's responsibilities to a second-tier PG like Bibby, and the Suns offense takes a major step backward. Transfer them to a stopgap sort-of point forward like Hill or Diaw, and it's no longer the Suns.

I agree that Hill should help the Suns overcome their regular-season plague of getting outscored 22-4 every time Nash went to the bench. But in the playoffs, the Suns' improvement will have to come on the defensive end. That will help the offense by chain reaction, because the officials will take the Suns more seriously and be more inclined to call fouls on both ends of the floor.

I agree that the Suns need to step up on defense. However, having a vet like Hill in the lineup I think not only helps your rotation but allow guys like Kurt to be in the lineup longer by having another guy in the lineup who can create a shot when Nash is out.

Again, the Suns can't rest their title hopes on Hill. However, Hill definitely helps this team.

 

[green machine]

The more players this team has that can facilitate an offense without Nash the better off the team will be.

With Barbosa, Hill, Diaw, and Stoudemire all able to create offense for themselves and the team Nash won't have to work nearly as hard. And while this doesn't improve the defense, that's where hopefully guys like Tucker and Strawberry come in.

 

[azirish]

If the Suns had enough offensive firepower, then what the hell happened in Game 5? Having a Grant Hill (as added insurance depth) would have really helped when PHX lost Amare and Diaw.

Game 3 was a game where the Suns lack of firepower was a problem.

On the surface their stats look good. They scored 101 points on 48.7% and 9 of 17 for three. However, they shot badly at the line, only 18 of 27 and took far fewer free throws than the Spurs who hit 29 of 36.

But even the Suns shooting percentage was deceptive. Several players shot badly:

Nash 6 of 17
Barbosa 2 of 6
Thomas 3 of 8
Jones 0 of 0

In the third quarter, the Suns scored only 19 points and effectively lost the game at that point.

 

[elindholm]

If the Suns had enough offensive firepower, then what the hell happened in Game 5? Having a Grant Hill (as added insurance depth) would have really helped when PHX lost Amare and Diaw.

Huh? The Suns weren't going anywhere without Stoudemire and Diaw anyway. Hill wouldn't have made a difference in Game 5, especially once you figure that he replaces Jones.

Game 5 was a lost cause from the opening tip. No useful conclusions can be drawn from it..

 

[elindholm]

Game 3 was a game where the Suns lack of firepower was a problem... In the third quarter, the Suns scored only 19 points and effectively lost the game at that point.

You can put all the All-World scorers on your roster that you want, but they're still going to have a poor-shooting quarter from time to time.

 

[az1965]

No, obviously not. Upgrading Jones to Hill -- and it's an upgrade only for as long as Hill can stay healthy -- doesn't address any critical problems. Basically it's like if you have a car where the brakes don't work, and you try to solve the problem by putting in better speakers.

Agree on Hill's health concern. However, I do think he can address a critical problem, i.e., getting to the hole and creating his own shots, something Jones was not capable of. I also agree that Hill does not address another critical need of defensive stopper but at the same time believe Jones' defense was overrated. I do give him credit for hustling. So, overall, I see a better lineup.

 

[Chaplin]

Huh? The Suns weren't going anywhere without Stoudemire and Diaw anyway. Hill wouldn't have made a difference in Game 5, especially once you figure that he replaces Jones.

Game 5 was a lost cause from the opening tip. No useful conclusions can be drawn from it..

Come on Eric, you know better than that. Game 5 was there for the taking until the latter half of the 4th quarter. It was never a lost cause from the opening tip.

This illusion you have that we are so horribly overmatched by the Spurs just doesn't seem to have any strength to it. We lost to the Spurs, fine. And we all agree there are areas to improve, but this idea that it almost doesn't matter what we do, we'll never be up to their level is fantasy. We were easily the Spurs hardest opponent in the playoffs, and without a bonehead move by Diaw and Stoudemire, that series could possibly have gone 7, and game 7 was in Phoenix, by the way, as well.

I understand the idea that you don't think we would have won the series anyway, but to constantly say that we were so overmatched is just not realistic, IMO.

 

[Nasser22]

Against the Spurs, I would agree. But for most of the season, I think Hill starts (see http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=93006).

In any case, I think Hill would be a lot more useful against the Spurs than Jones was. The simple truth is that with the way the Spurs focused on beating up Nash, it was a huge problem that no one else in the Suns lineup could make his own shot or handl the ball handling.

Yes, against anyone else that starting line-up is one of the best in the league. There is absolutely no problem with that. Even with that line-up I hope D'Antoni does give Kurt a good amount of minutes, especially with Amare, but he doesn't need to start. Hill will take Jones' place and will start, but it's not like he's going to get regular starter minutes. 15-20 during the season is what I expect.

 

[ajcardfan]

Come on Eric, you know better than that. Game 5 was there for the taking until the latter half of the 4th quarter. It was never a lost cause from the opening tip.

Heck, it was there for the taking until the last couple of minutes. If a 3 or 4 more WIDE open shots had been knocked down we'd probably still be reveling in our first title and no one would give two hoots about the draft or Grant Hill.

 

[elindholm]

Come on Eric, you know better than that. Game 5 was there for the taking until the latter half of the 4th quarter. It was never a lost cause from the opening tip.

I disagree. The Spurs sleepwalked through the first quarter but methodically dominated the game from that point forward. They had one eye on the scoreboard and the other on the clock, and they paced themselves comfortably to overtake the Suns with a few minutes to spare. They knew that the Suns would gradually run out of gas and gimmicks, so all they had to do was take care of business and let their superiority dictate the outcome.

This illusion you have that we are so horribly overmatched by the Spurs just doesn't seem to have any strength to it.

Where do you get the idea that I think the Suns are "horribly overmatched"? They were in Game 5, of course, but overall they were competitive.

this idea that it almost doesn't matter what we do, we'll never be up to their level is fantasy.

I agree. But it's also fantasy to believe that the gap will be overcome by a couple of cosmetic moves that do nothing to address the Suns' real shortcomings.

I understand the idea that you don't think we would have won the series anyway, but to constantly say that we were so overmatched is just not realistic, IMO.

I agree that "constantly" saying that the Suns were "so overmatched" is unrealistic -- which is why I do no such thing.

 

[Chaplin]

I agree that "constantly" saying that the Suns were "so overmatched" is unrealistic -- which is why I do no such thing.

Most posts you ever write are about how we can't beat the Spurs, this move won't work, this one is worthless, etc, the Spurs will still beat us. To me, that says "we are overmatched". My apologies if that is wrong.

 

[Chaplin]

Well, here's a nice change... John Hollinger likes the move:

Grant Hill to Suns
Short-term A, long-term A
What's not to like about this one? Hill comes to Phoenix as a virtual no-risk proposition, signing on for a pittance to get his shot at a ring. The Suns effectively traded James Jones for Grant Hill while saving a few million (once you include the luxury tax ramifications) on the transaction, and the deal is short-term enough that if Hill's injury woes return they won't handcuff the franchise.

 

[elindholm]

Most posts you ever write are about how we can't beat the Spurs, this move won't work, this one is worthless, etc, the Spurs will still beat us. To me, that says "we are overmatched". My apologies if that is wrong.

No, the only wrong part is the intensifier: "so" overmatched, or "horribly" overmatched.

Yes, the Suns are inferior to the Spurs. The gap is small, but it's real. If the Suns want to beat the Spurs, they need to get better, or hope the Spurs get worse.

So far, the 2007-08 roster looks no better than the 2006-07 version. In terms of personnel, there is a bit more talent, but certain key players have gotten older, and not to their advantage. Furthermore, the 2006-07 version was improbably blessed with near perfect health, which would be foolish to count on again, especially now that none other than Grant Hill is in the starting lineup.

And since the Spurs don't seem to have gotten worse in the last few weeks, I'd say the gap is still there.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

But even the Suns shooting percentage was deceptive. Several players shot badly:

Nash 6 of 17
Barbosa 2 of 6
Thomas 3 of 8
Jones 0 of 0

In the third quarter, the Suns scored only 19 points and effectively lost the game at that point.

jones shot 100% - that's pretty good in my book.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

15-20 during the season is what I expect.

for everyone expecting 15 - 20 mins from grant hill . . . you're wrong. if he's healthy he's playing 25 - 30 mins. he wants to be an integral piece of a team. he averaged 30 mins in orlando last year and i think he'll get some good burn with us too.

 

[azirish]

Most posts you ever write are about how we can't beat the Spurs, this move won't work, this one is worthless, etc, the Spurs will still beat us. To me, that says "we are overmatched". My apologies if that is wrong.

Eric wants KG and will not be satisfied until they get him. If the Suns think they've got enough to win without getting him they might not pay the price, so....

Would they better off with KG and PJ than Marion and KT. Obvously. Is that switch likely. No.

Would the Suns be better off with KG and PJ than Amare and KT? Maybe. Due to all the contract issues, trade penalty, etc. it is not clear there is a financial way to do that even if it gave the team a temporary on court advantage. In any case, the Suns FO have made it clear they are not interested.

IMHO the Suns still hope to pick up somebody like PJ so they could unload KT to get LT relief near the trade deadline. I do not see them doing anything that will increase their luxury tax.

 

[elindholm]

Eric wants KG and will not be satisfied until they get him. If the Suns think they've got enough to win without getting him they might not pay the price, so....

Please don't put words into my mouth until you adopt the habit of actually reading and understanding my posts.

I will be satisfied with anything that substantially improves the team. Upgrading Marion to Garnett would qualify, but it's probably impossible (now). Replacing Jones with Hill is a minor improvement, once you take health and defense into account. Replacing the #24 pick with cash was no improvement at all.

IMHO the Suns still hope to pick up somebody like PJ so they could unload KT to get LT relief near the trade deadline. I do not see them doing anything that will increase their luxury tax.

You're probably right, but then yes, I will be dissatisfied. I want the 2007-08 season to open with the Suns acclaimed as championship favorites, and then I want them to get it done. If that's not possible within the budget, then I have the right to be dissatisfied.

 

[Rab]

It's time to get over KG.

 

[asudevil83]

It's time to get over KG.

i think the media completely fooled anyone here who seriously thought KG was coming over here for Marion. ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN....and probably never stood a chance at happening once we lost Atlanta's pick this year.

it was a ratings push by ESPN to hype up the draft...and it worked. and as much as it hurts me to say it, Gambo was spot on about what was going on thoughout the trade talks.....and that was NOTHING.

 

[Treesquid PhD]

Please don't put words into my mouth until you adopt the habit of actually reading and understanding my posts.

I will be satisfied with anything that substantially improves the team. Upgrading Marion to Garnett would qualify, but it's probably impossible (now). Replacing Jones with Hill is a minor improvement, once you take health and defense into account. Replacing the #24 pick with cash was no improvement at all.



You're probably right, but then yes, I will be dissatisfied. I want the 2007-08 season to open with the Suns acclaimed as championship favorites, and then I want them to get it done. If that's not possible within the budget, then I have the right to be dissatisfied.

Is James Jones Junior's defense really so much superior that it brings Hill to a "minor" upgrade? I think most NBA GM's would disagree with that opinion.

The fact is James Jones is not very good, any over hype of someone's "hustle" or doing the little things is a joke, Amare hit the floor more than Unior did but people don't single out that part of his game because he can actually play basketball.

Grant Hill is still widely considered a good player when healthy, several teams likely wanted him on their roster, including Dallas, Detroit and San Antonio, while James Jones is considered a player to go get when you want a late first round pick in return.

 

[mribnik]

Is James defense really so much superior that it brings Hill to a "minor" upgrade? I think most NBA GM's would disagree with that opinion.

The fact is James Jones is not very good, any over hype of someone's "hustle" or doing the little things is a joke, Amare hit the floor more than Unior did but people don't single out that part of his game because he can actually play basketball.

Grant Hill is still widely considered a good player when healthy, several teams likely wanted him on their roster, including Dallas, Detroit and San Antonio, while James Jones is considered a player to go get when you want a late first round pick in return.

James Jones is a solid defender, but I didn't think he was a very good team defender at all. I remember him missing rotations quite often. Hence, his impact on the defensive end wasn't very much, even though he had the ability to slow down guys on occassion.

 

[azirish]

I don't think we need to trash Jones to conclude Hill is an overall upgrade. 2004-05 Hill was on the All Star team and his stats last season were comparable (when considering the change in the team offense). Plus Orlando was 3rd in shooting percentage defense last season, so Hill must not have been a horrendous liability on the defensive end.

 

[elindholm]

Wasn't Hill a starter on that All-Star team? All that means is that he drew a lot of fan votes. Historically, it's not that unusual for some All-Star starters to have not even played during the first half of the season.

 

[Rab]

Wasn't Hill a starter on that All-Star team? All that means is that he drew a lot of fan votes. Historically, it's not that unusual for some All-Star starters to have not even played during the first half of the season.

I think he was a starter, but he had a pretty solid season that year.