HurricaneDij's Top Ten 3-and-D Specialists

[True Lakers Fan]

TLF, I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand! He's not injured and hasn't been for a while now.

There was another site that didn't have him on the roster for the Lakers, so I expect they will fix it before the season starts. I am going to take a chance though and wait til he clears waivers to pick him up. Problem is I would have to give up my reserve center to get him and the reserve I have is better than anything that would be available if I didn't like KCP.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

TLF Zone.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

So just curious, if given the chance to sign Solomon Hill back to his original 4 year 44M contract, or KCP at say 13M a year for 4 years, so 4 year 52M, you would choose Hill over KCP?

Well If if were to speak on behalf on the Pacers and Nuggets who have Oladipo and Gary Harris at SG respectively, I wouldn't touch KCP with a ten-foot pole. I don't know where this $13 million hypothetical is coming from, because he was said to be seeking much more than that throughout the course of last season.

I'm a Solo Hill fanboy and I won't apologize for it. Just about everyone is guilty of judging him for his less-than stellar counting stats, but that's just who he is. He's a glue guy that won't hurt you in any major category. If the Pacers were to reacquire him next summer once he's fully healthy again, I'd be all for it, especially considering that we need a wing defender in the worst way right now.

Am I saying Solo is a better player than KCP? No. Perhaps KCP has a big year heading into unrestrcted free agency and maybe Lonzo Ball bring out the best in him, but if I had a choice of Hill at $12 million a year vs. Pope at $18 million a year, I think you know which way I'm going.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

Well If if were to speak on behalf on the Pacers and Nuggets who have Oladipo and Gary Harris at SG respectively, I wouldn't touch KCP with a ten-foot pole. I don't know where this $13 million hypothetical is coming from, because he was said to be seeking much more than that throughout the course of last season.

I'm a Solo Hill fanboy and I won't apologize for it. Just about everyone is guilty of judging him for his less-than stellar counting stats, but that's just who he is. He's a glue guy that won't hurt you in any major category. If the Pacers were to reacquire him next summer once he's fully healthy again, I'd be all for it, especially considering that we need a wing defender in the worst way right now.

Am I saying Solo is a better player than KCP? No. Perhaps KCP has a big year heading into unrestrcted free agency and maybe Lonzo Ball bring out the best in him, but if I had a choice of Hill at $12 million a year vs. Pope at $18 million a year, I think you know which way I'm going.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

The Lakers had money to spend! What were they supposed to do, not sign anyone and distribute the remaining cap space amongst the players they already have? Name one better free agent at the time who they could have signed!

Plus it's a one year deal which has no impact on 2018 whatsoever.

You still salty about the Lakers and the PG13 situation?

When exactly did I ever criticize the Lakers for signing KCP?

I was simply pointing out the they were the one team that could afford to pay him the per-year amount he was looking for...

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

When exactly did I ever criticize the Lakers for signing KCP?

I read an article earlier in the spring on CBS that KCP was a max contract candidate for this summer. Maybe that wasn't the best way to judge, but there's no way I give him $18 million a year. Way too streaky. The Lakers were the one team that could afford to do so since they were putting much their eggs in the 2018 free agent market.

 

[tlance]

Yeah, can't get too caught up on the dollar figure in those 1 year deals. JJ freaking Reddick got 23. Teams have to overpay to get their guy to pass up a 3-4 year deal elsewhere. $18 million for 1 year is a bargain. Literally no downside to it.

 

[CitySushi]

Well If if were to speak on behalf on the Pacers and Nuggets who have Oladipo and Gary Harris at SG respectively, I wouldn't touch KCP with a ten-foot pole. I don't know where this $13 million hypothetical is coming from, because he was said to be seeking much more than that throughout the course of last season.

I'm a Solo Hill fanboy and I won't apologize for it. Just about everyone is guilty of judging him for his less-than stellar counting stats, but that's just who he is. He's a glue guy that won't hurt you in any major category. If the Pacers were to reacquire him next summer once he's fully healthy again, I'd be all for it, especially considering that we need a wing defender in the worst way right now.

Am I saying Solo is a better player than KCP? No. Perhaps KCP has a big year heading into unrestrcted free agency and maybe Lonzo Ball bring out the best in him, but if I had a choice of Hill at $12 million a year vs. Pope at $18 million a year, I think you know which way I'm going.

No one is saying that Pope deserves or will warrant an 18M per year contract. What I'm asking is if Pope signs for 13M annually, which I believe to be more accurate to his market, would you still take Hill over him? The 13M is my approximation of what he'd likely be able to receive, based off dying cap space from teams and KCP being willing to take a 1 year 18M contract. That means that the 18M was WAY above his current per year starting range in order for him to consider it. Look at JJ Redick who took a 1 year 23M contract. He was said to be seeking a contract in the 18M per range and wasn't able to get it or find a reasonable landing spot. He opted for a 1 year big contract and will re-assess next year. If KCP took a 1 year 18M contract, I'd say the MOST he was looking at for a per year value was 13-14M.

And I'm not just basing Hill's game off his stats. I rarely, if ever, use stats as a pure metric for rating a player. I've seen his game and nothing about it really impresses me or says he's starter material in the NBA.

 

[WiggyRuss]

No one is saying that Pope deserves or will warrant an 18M per year contract. What I'm asking is if Pope signs for 13M annually, which I believe to be more accurate to his market, would you still take Hill over him? The 13M is my approximation of what he'd likely be able to receive, based off dying cap space from teams and KCP being willing to take a 1 year 18M contract. That means that the 18M was WAY above his current per year starting range in order for him to consider it. Look at JJ Redick who took a 1 year 23M contract. He was said to be seeking a contract in the 18M per range and wasn't able to get it or find a reasonable landing spot. He opted for a 1 year big contract and will re-assess next year. If KCP took a 1 year 18M contract, I'd say the MOST he was looking at for a per year value was 13-14M.

And I'm not just basing Hill's game off his stats. I rarely, if ever, use stats as a pure metric for rating a player. I've seen his game and nothing about it really impresses me or says he's starter material in the NBA.

@CitySushi

who would you rather have?

gobert or whiteside?

 

[CitySushi]

@CitySushi

who would you rather have?

gobert or whiteside?

Probably Gobert. I almost snap said Gobert, but I thought about it some more and think it's probably a lot closer than I initially thought it would be.

I believe Gobert is basically peak DeAndre Jordan. What I mean by that is he's an elite defender, and a good finisher, but he offers little outside of rim running and dump offs in the pick and roll. He's not a post scorer and he's got almost no mid range game.

Whiteside offers much more upside offensively than Gobert. Whiteside has developed a really good and pretty consistent mid-range which is a game changer to me.

At the end of the day I probably go with Gobert because I believe him to be a better defender and mostly a better defender in space. I don't think either player is a team you could build a championship roster around, but I feel like Gobert would be a better #3 on a championship team than Whiteside. But I also believe Whiteside would be a better #2 on a team looking to compete than Gobert because of his offensive ability. It's kind of like the Blake Griffin vs. Draymond Green argument a few years back.

 

[ManuForever]

@CitySushi

who would you rather have?

gobert or whiteside?

This is literally a thread about 3-and-D players. The hell is your problem?

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

@CitySushi

who would you rather have?

gobert or whiteside?

How about you keep this discussion in only one thread you stupid fuck!

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

The hell is your problem?

How long you got?

 

[CitySushi]

Probably Gobert. I almost snap said Gobert, but I thought about it some more and think it's probably a lot closer than I initially thought it would be.

I believe Gobert is basically peak DeAndre Jordan. What I mean by that is he's an elite defender, and a good finisher, but he offers little outside of rim running and dump offs in the pick and roll. He's not a post scorer and he's got almost no mid range game.

Whiteside offers much more upside offensively than Gobert. Whiteside has developed a really good and pretty consistent mid-range which is a game changer to me.

At the end of the day I probably go with Gobert because I believe him to be a better defender and mostly a better defender in space. I don't think either player is a team you could build a championship roster around, but I feel like Gobert would be a better #3 on a championship team than Whiteside. But I also believe Whiteside would be a better #2 on a team looking to compete than Gobert because of his offensive ability. It's kind of like the Blake Griffin vs. Draymond Green argument a few years back.

@WiggyRuss any thoughts on my response?

 

[WiggyRuss]

@WiggyRuss any thoughts on my response?

I was thinking about it by @TheKlaw seemed really offended. lol....

 

[trojanfan12]

When exactly did I ever criticize the Lakers for signing KCP?

I was simply pointing out the they were the one team that could afford to pay him the per-year amount he was looking for...

Looks like @Shaqdaddy11 thought your "there's no way I'm giving him $18 million" comment was a criticism of KCP.

As @tlance points out, there's no downside to the Lakers doing it.

It's a 1 year deal and money they had to spend. Even with him not really being worth $18 million, it's still a good deal for the Lakers because he is an upgrade over what they had (especially on defense) and, as you pointed out, he will have zero effect on their ability to chase top FA's in 2018, which is the basket they have their eggs in anyway. Literally a no lose deal for the Lakers.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Looks like @Shaqdaddy11 thought your "there's no way I'm giving him $18 million" comment was a criticism of KCP.

As @tlance points out, there's no downside to the Lakers doing it.

It's a 1 year deal and money they had to spend. Even with him not really being worth $18 million, it's still a good deal for the Lakers because he is an upgrade over what they had (especially on defense) and, as you pointed out, he will have zero effect on their ability to chase top FA's in 2018, which is the basket they have their eggs in anyway. Literally a no lose deal for the Lakers.

esp. because they dont have their pick

normally- signing a player that will have no long term impact just to win a few extra games in a season where the Lakers have no chance of making the playoffs would not be smart- and just jeopardize draft position

but the Lakers dont have their pick anyway--- so why not sign the guy and win an extra 2-3 games?

 

[trojanfan12]

esp. because they dont have their pick

normally- signing a player that will have no long term impact just to win a few extra games in a season where the Lakers have no chance of making the playoffs would not be smart- and just jeopardize draft position

but the Lakers dont have their pick anyway--- so why not sign the guy and win an extra 2-3 games?

Exactly. Although I'm not 100% convinced that they would be looking to tank if they had their pick (eventually you have to quit tanking and develop your guys), the fact that they don't have their pick just makes this a no brainer, imo.

For the Lakers to really be able to go after top FA's, the team needs to show improvement and the FO has to show that they have some idea as to what the hell they are doing.

The more games they win, the better it looks to top FA's and it has the added benefit of devaluing the pick for whomever currently has it.

 

[CitySushi]

Exactly. Although I'm not 100% convinced that they would be looking to tank if they had their pick (eventually you have to quit tanking and develop your guys), the fact that they don't have their pick just makes this a no brainer, imo.

For the Lakers to really be able to go after top FA's, the team needs to show improvement and the FO has to show that they have some idea as to what the hell they are doing.

The more games they win, the better it looks to top FA's and it has the added benefit of devaluing the pick for whomever currently has it.

One added side note to this deal, the Lakers might be able to flip him for an additional pick to a team needing another solid player. The Lakers wouldn't be looking to take back on a bad contract otherwise they might be able to get more, but if they could get additional expirings on a straight up trade, they could see another pick out of this.

 

[trojanfan12]

One added side note to this deal, the Lakers might be able to flip him for an additional pick to a team needing another solid player. The Lakers wouldn't be looking to take back on a bad contract otherwise they might be able to get more, but if they could get additional expirings on a straight up trade, they could see another pick out of this.

Good point.