The Lakers as an organization and their bigs make Jordan Hill kick it up a notch. And Kobe Bryant. He's on center stage, and even if he's not Iago or Othello, even if he's only in the role of Soldier Standing There, his poor performance could cause disaster. But I'd hate to think that since he's playing for Something now---championship, glittering organization, contract---that he's put down the bong and actually trying, as opposed to going through the motions with us. Granted, I'm sure the speech he got when he arrived in L.A. ("We don't know why they gave up on you, but we need you, you're gonna tear it up out there; hey, was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?") has also goosed his a$$.
Unfortunately teams tend to discard what seems like a player of lesser talents and keep Captain Potential. Ppat's bad ankle detracts from his trade worth, so naturally Morey holds onto him, and the organization hopes he'll round into the player they think they drafted. Had Jordan Hill continued with the Rockets, he would've continued with his 1 game on, 3 games bong.
It was a question of the timing of his contract extension and the investment going forward. That was first and foremost. Secondly, Patterson did outplay Jordan Hill on the court. I dont know why anyone would think differently.
Then what's the big deal about getting something in return for Hill instead of paying, while having PPat play for "cheap". This keeps our flexibility. Obviously Hill has a better a supporting cast on the Lakers and it's showing.
You took the words out of my mouth. Neither player appears to be a superstar. What is clear is that Morey wants to get an "impact" player. So risk/reward. What is the risk of letting Hill walk? Get nothing in return for 2 months of extra play in 2012. What is the risk of losing him via trade? Lost 2 months of inconsistent productivity and the potential that Hill turns into an impact player (= 0% chance) What is gained by trading Hill? We get a pick. Reward: Maybe you can draft the next Tony Parker at #28. Risk = 0 Reward = .1% .1 > 0 Summary: With such a low risk/reward ratio, it isn't really worth getting all emotional about because he was nothing for us before and this likely will translate into nothing later on.
My only issue is that their job is to keep the better player - or the guy with the most upside, and it is unclear if that is what they did here. DD
I believe the issue here with JH is that he needs/needed/will continue to need an environment like LAL/SAS/possibly Mavs to succeed. For too many psychobabble reasons this talented player could not succeed in NYK and would not in RocketWorld. Hill needs to count his blessings and accept whatever offer Jimmy B allows to be put forward.
What are you talking about? What kind of stats do you want to look at, or do you want to just go off of the eye test? Patrick Patterson is by far the better player in so many ways. Maybe Jordan can rebound slightly better, but thats about it. The whole "upside" talk is ridiculous. He's been in the league three years, he's going to get better at what he does over time, but he's never going to be anything more than what he is which is an energy big off the bench. I just dont understand what the argument you have is about. Did they let the better player go???.... no. They let the TALLER player go. The one who was due 8.4 million dollars over the next two years if they wanted to keep him. They decided that Jordan Hill is not the answer to their problems so they decided to take a draft pick for him instead of a Jordan Hill 2 month rental. Patterson is a year younger in the league so according to his contract his time for evaluation on an extension will come NEXT SEASON. There was no choice THIS SEASON on who to choose. The whole choice of Patterson vs. Hill is ridiculous. There was no choice between the two, it was Jordan Hill locked up or a draft pick.
They got what they could (a "first round asset" . . . guess what NBA GM-ing genius coined that phrase? Hint, his name rhymes with LoLakota . . . ) for a guy who had done nothing in the league, sucked with the Rockets, and who they were going to lose for nothing. End of argument.
I will ignore the baiting comments from you and simply say that if JHill turns out to be better than PPat, it will be judged as a failure on the orgs part, UNLESS the pick turns out to be significant.... DD
Coolio. I'm going to arbitrarily frame the issue too then. If Jordan Hill turns out less than a DINOSAUR PARTY SANDWICH, then deal is to be judged a failure. Be this known to all men, women, children, their children's children, and their children's children's chilluns. DINOSAUR PARTY SANDWICH.. Got it? Dinosaur mother ****ing party sandwich.
How can you (i.e. anyone) adequately judge whether or not one player is better than another when talent levels are similar? The team a player is on generally will impact how a player performs. Had Jeremy Lin not fallen into a fortunate situation with the Knicks, he'd still be an unknown quantity. Just a few posts back, you implied that Hill was better than Patterson because he was drafted higher that Patterson even though it was in a different draft. By your (i.e. you) logic Thabeet is better than both of them - correct? After all, there was a reason he was drafted 2nd and Hill 8th.
Regardless how people feel about Lin or Hill, it's safe to say that the Rockets haven't caught a goose that lays golden eggs, yet. Nothing wrong with that, but there does have to be a change of course, because the last time the Rockets had a real impact player was Yao Ming or Ron Artest. We have good players, but everyone sort of treads the water and haven't really reached the bonafide status of all-star or go-to option.
Hard to say about Thabeet, he is at a different position, and one that has teams generally reach for height and athleticism. In regards to Hill, he and Patterson are both PFs.... I don't think it is a BIG deal, but if Hill turns out to be better than PPat, to me it calls into question their ability to project performance going forward. Either way, this is not that big of a deal for me.....at all. DD
Oh, man. I can't believe people on this board are ripping Morey for giving up Hill for a 1st-rounder. I read so many posts saying he should just be released, or traded for a 2nd-round pick, that having him on the team was a large part of what was holding the Rox back.
To me,they should've salary dumped scola and let hill and patterson consume all the minutes at the 4 spot. That's what I said then and that's what I say now. Its not like scolas absence would've made the team worse. Just like people thought lowry not playing was going to doom the team and it didn't. Martin in the same boat. The rockets don't have impact players,just bit players.
Uhh... I hope you like jump shots and contested 3 pointers. Having Scola around makes everyone better within an offensive system like McHale's. If you take away Scola you would have to go in a totally different direction as a team. I guess if your a pro-tanker then it makes sense to in theory "kick the ball out of bounds" by putting your coach in a situation where he doesn't stand a chance to win any games. Plus, you cant just trade Scola for nothing. No team wants to give up that kind of capspace to take on his contract without giving up anything but a draft pick or two. I actually am in the mindset that having Scola around these young players is actually a positive for their development. -First, he gives them someone they can initiate the offense with at least in the first half of games. Opens them up for better shots, better offense, better numbers for everyone. -Secondly, he's going to help develop young post players by challenging them for minutes, and pushing them in practice. -Lastly, he's the ultimate professional, and a great mentor for young guys that need a voice in the lockeroom. That being said, this team needs a major upgrade in the low post, and this team will never be a top defensive team if he's a major contributor. I was hoping that someone like Patterson or Hill would be able to challenge him for the starting spot this year but that ended up being a major dissapointment that those young guys did not sieze the opportunity to get better.
I might agree that Patterson could have the better future because he is more of a professional as of now. but this season offensive efficiency PER suggests otherwise FWIW Jordan Hill: 15.8 in 40 games and before the injury he played alright Patrick : 11.6 in 60 games Patrick did not have a good season overall, he had nice 10 nice games but that was to it. http://espn.go.com/nba/team/stats/_/name/hou/cat/PER/houston-rockets
