I like Landry off the bench. I am talking about him replacing current Hill role. Nothing to do with Scola. Ish (.5 mil)+Hill(2.5 mil) can land us Landry (3 mil), if we are talking about trade money-wise.
I thought I did answer that question, you can't trade Hill, who's going to be making about 2 mil next year for Landry, who'll be upped to about 5-6 next year. And since we dont even know what Hill can do yet, this would be very short minded on our part. So no, I would not trade hill for Landry, just because of money we would waste, and its not a big enough upgrade. Like I said, landry for Scola would make more sense, cause now we would be saving money, while arguable getting similar production back...
Still no. 1. Landry will start to decline fairly soon. he is in his late 20s 2. Even though their contracts are the same now, they won't be next season. Landry will be looking to get payed and somebody will give him a bigger contract that Hill 3. Even though he's very raw right now, I think Hill can still become a solid contributor for an NBA team (hopefully this one). He's still a rookie for all intensive purposes and I don't think he's even played 82 games in his career. Or if he has then it wouldn't be much over 82 games. 4. Landry's career as a Rocket was over the day he was traded for the Scoring Machine (Martin). Its over, he isn't coming back but I wish him well.
If you picked Hill over Landry right now for this Houston Rockets team this year you are really ignorant!
ironic, i could say the same about you. at least we gave reasons why we thought what we thought. you on the other hand, give not argument and insult us. you are exactly the type of poster that adds tremendous value to our discussion. thanks for your contribution.
Oh wow that was a burn! haha well done! OT: I will take Hills mistakes...he gives us what we need which is a weakside shot blocker...however they pair him up with a statue in Miller so sometimes he has to leave his man or concentrate on two players instead of one.
Landry's deficiencies as a starter at PF have already been exposed; he would get eaten alive at center. While Hill is struggling playing out of position at center, he is the easy choice over Landry.
This. I'm not totally sure Landry has peaked, but you have to think that maybe he has. Patterson and Hill might be too many assets at one position, but I don't see how Patterson and Landry would be better.
Hill is pretty weak on defense as well. well he has his moments but most of the time he is below avg. id perfer landry not as a replacement for hill at center, but would just rather have him on the team over hill so he can play his natural position.
At first glance I thought you were saying Landry had man-love for Hill at one time but he's over Hill now
assuming that we are both talking about having them come off the bench as a backup PF/C I would go Landry every day. While Landry doesnt have the length of Hill, the toughness, energy and hustle he brought is something that Hill hasnt shown at all in any of his games last year or this year. To me I feel like Hill has a long way to go developing and can easily be the more skilled player than Landry but I cant picture Hill ever being as consistent as Carl was when he was here. I dont want to give up on Hill just yet but the guy has not really impressed me much defensively at all and thats where the team needs him the most.
That the thing Hill can be a better player than Landry given his physical gifts, but I dont think he'll be as consistent as Landry will. Right now Hill reminds me of Stromile Swift, just not as athletic. Swift would tease us with a really good game followed by 3-4 straight duds and then another good game again.
Landry was already a polished player, but not all bigs come polished. Swift was a 5 year vet that had been declining since his 2nd year with the Grizzlies, when the Rockets got him. If a player is a bust after 5 years for their previous team, there is not much player development that the Rockets can do. It's rarity for player to go from 5 yr bust to 6th yr contributor. Rockets should have never bothered with him. Hill is a raw player that picked up basketball in high school with only 1 full season(barely played). If you check out the 1st and 2nd season of other raw players with athleticism, they had similiar inconsistent play. They added some new moves and got better. Jordan has already added some new moves. It shows that he is coachable after only 1 season. Swift wasn't coachable after 5 seasons. http://www.nba.com/playerfile/david_west/career_stats.html http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jermaine_oneal/career_stats.html
I'm not sold on Hill, but he is being asked to play a major role on a team that's seriously undermanned in the PF/C spot, and he hasn't played one full season yet. I wonder how good Landry would have looked playing starter's minutes in his rookie or second year on an undermanned team. His defensive weaknesses may have stuck out like a sore thumb, like Hill right now.
