Hill and Patterson can only hope to be as productive and as important to a team at some point in their career as Scola has been.
Patterson is the better player right now, IMO. That said, there's a strong chance Hill is the player with the most trade value and upside, therefore I wouldn't mind shopping Hill in a trade to acquire Player X or whatever Morey has brewing.
Yeah a non athletic that can almost average a double and just knows how to win super high basketball IQ. He sucks lets get rid of him.
I grimaced as I submitted my answer (Jordan Hill) because these two guys are that even to me. Sure, Hill has played actual NBA games, but Patterson's attitude and work ethic have really sold me.
Actually, this is a trick question anyway. The combined salary of Bud and either Hill or Patterson is about $3M. That means lots and lots of filler for a franchise player (perhaps Battier and Jeffries to add $12M - 13M to the deal). However, I would keep Hill every day of the week. He's taller and quicker, has more offense and has more upside. What you get now from Patterson is what you will always get.
Frankly, if we are talking about a real "big fish" like Bosh or James (Lebron, not Mike), you give up whomever it takes to get the deal done.
Patterson will be our Mr. Intangible after Battier is gone. (That means posters like Kwame and leebigez will hate Patterson. :grin: )
U miss my point. Whatever he gives on offense, he gives back on defense. Too many times teams got on a strong roll because he couldn't hold his man. Scola love reminds me of the blind Steve franchise love.
I will give him 3 yrs in the playoffs like i did shane. Hopefully his demeanor doesnt restrict him during crunch time.
I would think that the most marketable asset would be neither of those two, but Luis Scola in a S&T. We can sign him as high as we need to go to reduce the filler we have to throw in. We just don't need Scola riding the pine at max salary behind Amare or Bosh, it just doesn't make sense. Scola (I love him too) is just a better candidate IMO. Morey may also feel that way since we drafted PP to make it 4 PF's on board.
I said patterson. Haven't gotten the chance to see his play. So i'm judging the book by it's cover. Sue me
it looks like Patterson can play D, blocking shots. this isn't something that i saw in Hill whenever he played. but really, we're so limited to what we know about these two gentlemen that it's all in the air at the moment. my further convictions: Patterson can be a spot-up shooter from the 3, which is something we desperately need while we're running Brooks and Martin on the back-court, driving in. consistency is important, so is capability. from the looks of Patterson, his ceiling is very high like Hill. only, his game is more well-rounded. i'd actually compare Patterson more with Budinger in the offensive game. on D, i'd compare to Big Ben (the current one, not the DPOY of the old). if Patterson can develop a dribble + ball-handling game, he can replace both CBud and Hill. hence, i'd keep Patterson.
The Rockets would not have won nearly as many games without Scola the past few years. It amazes me how some people still value "athleticism" over how well a player can actually play the game, and "potential" over winning. If some people on this board were GMs, they'd build teams that are full of great athletes but that have a losing record.
