Don Nelson tells Arizona PF Jordan Hill he won't get past the Warriors at #7
by Atma Brother ONE on Jun 13, 2009 2:00 PM PDT
in NBA Draft
75 comments
It looks it's time to bump up the Fab 5 of Jrue Holiday, Jonny Flynn, Brandon Jennings, Terrence Williams, and Tyreke Evans into a Stunning 6. There's one more name to add to the list of players the Warriors (seem like they) are pondering over with the 7th pick in the 2009 NBA Draft.
WHOA! He looks really different here.
Find out why after the jump!
GSoM friend Marcus Thompson's got the scoop on Jordan Hill's workout with the Warriors this past Friday [Inside Bay Area]:
[Jordan] Hill, 21, is perhaps unlikely to be there when the Warriors' turn comes at No. 7, considering he's regarded as the most NBA-ready big man next to Oklahoma power forward Blake Griffin, who's expected to go No. 1 to the Los Angeles Clippers. But if Hill is there, he may tempt the Warriors to disregard need and go for the best player available.
Hill held a solo workout with the Warriors on Friday morning. He said he was "pretty good" in his showing, which consisted, among other things, of running the floor, shooting midrange jumpers and working with his left hand.
He said he had dinner with Warriors coach Don Nelson on Thursday. He walked away thinking No. 7 might be the lowest he'll go.
"He said if I'm not picked in the top six," Hill said, "they're probably going to take me."
Maybe Hill is the BPA in Nellie and Larry Riley's eyes. Maybe this is a precursor to the type of trade Rusty Simmons tossed out over on SFGate.
Who really knows anything till June 25th...
Also see: Warriors Hold Individual Workout For Jordan Hill [Warriors.com]
0 recs |
75 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I really like Jordan Hill, but I don’t think he’s the right pick for us. We have enough big men with great upside as it is. If Brandon Jennings is there, I don’t think we can pass him up.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 13, 2009 2:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
smokescreen or trade
from the workout/interview video, hill didn’t come across as particularly fast or agile, physically or intellectually (not in re. to stuff like plato’s dialogues but the team does need to get smarter hoops-wise). looking at the recent test measurements, hansbrough is nearly the same size with better numbers in speed and agility, just for one, and johnson, heavier with twenty five pounds more compares favorably—both considered bottom first rounders.
they did spend extended time with hill individually, and he would clearly address the second need—“boeuf”—specified by riley, but if they can trade him while piggybacking an unwanted vet and getting someone equivalent back, um so besser, nicht wahr?
by the.monk on Jun 13, 2009 2:09 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Hill vs Hansborough
Hill is taller by an inch and have a no step vertical jump 3.5 inches higher than Hansborough. As PFs battling for rebounds or making a jump shot, Hill would have a decisive advantage.
by JSML on Jun 15, 2009 3:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hill is hyped/perceived
as the better athlete and player, will likely get drafted considerably higher with the expectations that go with it—as far as the physical tests, he does jump 3-4 inches higher but was more than a full second slower on the agility test, a little slower in the 3/4 court sprint, and seven reps short of hansbrough on the 185 lb. press. every draft has guys who fall considerably short of their expectations, and i will put hill on my list of candidates if he’s picked in the top ten. i think the bigs are a little more vulnerable to struggling with the speed of the nba game, mentally as much or more than physically.
by the.monk on Jun 15, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i was surprised by the video
that aside from runnings in a straight line, jordan hill is a STIFF
"If you can make 10 things happen during the 10 minutes you play tonight, we will quadruple your salary and you will start for the rest of the season" ... and then he does just that, but the coach reneges on the promise so Anthony has a near-crying meltdown on the bench. That's every Anthony Randolph game.
by gsw1 on Jun 13, 2009 2:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I watched him play some games at Arizona and Hill didn’t come across as a stiff at all.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 13, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait, are you telling me Tim Kawakami was wrong? That’s just crazy talk. Weird maybe we should’ve included this guy in the “who should we draft at 7?” poll. If only someone had suggested that a couple days ago…..
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 13, 2009 2:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think there's a good chance they'll take him...
…but I refuse to place a vote next to the words “Nellie don’t lie.”
by JRDub on Jun 13, 2009 3:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
yeah, even as a member of the don nelson fan club, i can recognize that the guy will say whatever he wants to the media without caring if it’s true.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 13, 2009 3:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if we pick hill wright needs to go cause randolph will not be a small forward
by gsw.raiders on Jun 13, 2009 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
unless hill isn’t as good as wright. wright will get some time to prove that he’s better than hill and we’ll make the best deal available for one of the two. i don’t see us keeping all 3, but making a deal to send one of them, plus a bad contract for someone to fill another need would be a very good situaiton for us.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 13, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we could easily keep all three, I can find room for Hill:
Kurz’s room,
Davidson’s room,
the laundry room …
no matter who we pick we at #7 for any position from PG to C, we should not expect any immediate, significant impact in the rotation (though I think Hill is as close as any of them would be to challenging the incumbents for PT since he’d be right behind Wright – competition between AR & Hill may even spur BW further). With concern about BW’s shoulder, Hill would be good e-surance anyway … and we can never have enough quality bigs imo
… even if we draft a PG, is Nelson going to do what he did last year and start a rookie PG on opening night after all but announcing his Monta+Jax backcourt? maybe, but I don’t see it if Monta’s healthy, willing, and able – even eager? to take up the challenge … the PG we draft at #7 would challenge CJ for sure, and make Crawford’s situation all the more complicated as we aren’t likely going to be able to jettison him …
sorry for digressing, back to Hill: for a long time lots of people assumed Hill would be ong gone before our spot, now that we might have a chance to grab him I’m getting more hopeful … which is the death knell for a GSW fan to be sure!
by hardcore on Jun 14, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
we could keep all three and i agree that there’s some room for hill to get time, but if he develops well enough, he’d probably be a bigger asset to us in a trade. i think the first year and up to next years deadline acts like an audition for the power forward minutes, with the worst of the 3 getting packaged to fill some other hole on the team. i’d be all for drafting hill even if it was just as trade bait, but if he develops well enough to beat out wright and eat some of randolph’s minutes, i don’t think anyone could complain. better players are usually a good thing to have around.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 14, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't mind keeping all 3, but
The fact that Wright and Biedrins don’t fit well together offensively, and a Wright/Turiaf combo doesn’t rebound the ball all that well makes me think 2 things 1. We should definitely take Hill if he’s available and 2.Even though I like Wright, he seems like the logical one to go. If he doesn’t hold much trade value now then I certainly wouldn’t mind holding on to all 3 for at least half a year, I can’t imagine there not being a bunch of teams that would love to add a 6’10"ish young athletic big around the deadline. I just don’t see much of a downside to picking Hill at 7.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 14, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t imagine there not being a bunch of teams that would love to add a 6’10"ish young athletic big around the deadline.
Unless he’s progressed significantly, I’m not sure there will be too many buyers… Teams looking for one more addition for their playoff run won’t be looking at him, so all he can really be used for is and a small chip in a larger trade (Say Corey Maggette for a worse contract/player to a contender or something). We’ll see how it pans out, but I don’t expect Wright to have much value by himself because of his contract situation, injury history, and minimal performance (not much PT and not overwhelmingly positive when he is on the floor).
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 15, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
would be great pick
has greats stats and has improved every year. pretty much second in pac10 behind harden and he can run the floor. There is no doubt our front court needs more depth maybe even more then our pg situation which isnt that bad if monta works and we resign cj(which is going to be more expensive then alot of people think) hes shown quiet alot this past season.
by Warriorfan on Jun 13, 2009 4:58 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nelson is a pathological liar
’we’ll probably take him’… that means nothing.
but if we did…. good by BWright or worse Randolph…..
by tafkasam on Jun 13, 2009 6:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
for some reason i could see nellie doing this....
drafting hill…..
bosh + marcus banks 4 biedrins, randolph, crawford.
by tafkasam on Jun 13, 2009 6:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
picture
i’m really glad jordan hill got rid of the locks/braids. the relaxed hair look suits him much better!
by dj fuzzylogic on Jun 13, 2009 7:22 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
He Cut His Dreads
Damn, that was the only reason why I wanted him here. Shake Dem Dreads?!?!? But now, I don’t get the point. Plus we have this future PF that we want to play so why get him? Honest question as well
by The Dedication on Jun 13, 2009 7:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he’s making a joke about the picture used above
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 13, 2009 7:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stephen Jackson
He should grow his dreads back.
by Precise Films Productions on Jun 13, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap!
Where have you been?
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 13, 2009 9:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hello mr. bloodsweatndonuts!
i’m out and about, here and there. mostly lurking around the site, equivalent to those creepy old guys at 21+ up clubs.
how are you?
by dj fuzzylogic on Jun 14, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: how are you?
Pretty much being the creepy old guy at GSoM. You know, leering at peoples avatars and buying fanshots for underage users.
Reduce your carbon footprint, commit suicide.
by bloodsweatndonuts on Jun 16, 2009 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
nah, being the old guy at gsom = wisdom. being the old guy at a club = desperate.
if you feel like following my non-gsom musings, check me at http://dailyfortune.wordpress.com. NSFW only cuz you’ won’t get any work done (sort of kidding)!
by dj fuzzylogic on Jun 18, 2009 3:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My Opinion Lol
We draft BJennings for PG, Trade for a better or another Center (preferebly CBosh). idk lol
by HellNoKrisO on Jun 13, 2009 8:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Would Nellie play him?
I doubt it. So why draft him? If its for a trade they better trade him right away, his value will only go down rotting on the bench.
by Bob on Jun 14, 2009 12:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
if he’s good, nellie would play him.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 14, 2009 1:12 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
over who?
Biedrins and Ronny at C, Nellie likes Maggette at PF, and we have Randolph there too. I don’t see mins for him.
by Bob on Jun 14, 2009 2:20 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
nellie doesn’t “like” maggette at pf; he had to play him there last season because randolph wasn’t ready and we traded harrington. he’ll get a chance to compete with wright for backup pf minutes. if he’s good enough, he’ll play. if he isn’t, he won’t.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 14, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nellie LOVES Maggette at PF
He’s the key to Nellie crap small-ball. I’d love someone like Jordan Hill IF Nellie would play him but he won’t. Nellie is more likely to play a rookie guard than a rookie big.
by Bob on Jun 14, 2009 2:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
what makes you think that nellie LOVES maggs at the 4? our undersized roster forced his hand at the beginning of the year, but now with randolph’s huge improvements, we really don’t need to play maggette at the pf. here’s a bold prediction: maggs will spend very little time at the 4 this year.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 14, 2009 4:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea, I totally agree. Nellie may go to it once in a while to exploit a matchup, but he certainly won’t be forced to go to that kind of a lineup for extended periods of time like we were last year. If we don’t pick Hill I have a hard time seeing Wright being moved for a non-big. If Wright/Hill, Randolph, Turiaf, and Biedrins are all healthy Nellie has 4 good players to play at the 4/5. Nellie likes to get his best players, regardless of position, minutes. All 4 of those guys would clearly be among the top 10 players on the team and get plenty of minutes.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 14, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know what fantasy world you guys live in
But Nellie likes small-ball and he’ll never play a 10-man rotation.
Minutes:
PG Monta(38)/Watson(12)
SG Jackson(24)/Morrow(24)
SF Azubuike(24)/Jackson(14)/Maggette(10)
PF Randolph(30)/Maggette(18)
C Biedrins(30)/Ronny(18)
Plenty of mins? PLEASE show me where there’s plenty of minutes for Jordan Hill. I can’t even find minutes for BWright or Belinelli.
by Bob on Jun 14, 2009 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i don’t know what sort of fantasy world you live in, but maggette at the power forward was a product of us not having enough bigs ready to play. when nellie has bigs, he plays them. check his teams from before the most recent warriors teams (you know, the ones that had a ton of wing players and no big men), he’ll play bigs when he has them.
on top of that, you narrowed nellie’s rotation from what he had last year. kurz and davidson played some and of course wright did too. you made up a rotation that inaccurately projects the lineup we have in order to fulfill your preconceived notions of how nellie likes to coach.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 14, 2009 11:52 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
MINUTES PER GAME
SG/SF Jackson = 39.6 mins
PG/SG Crawford = 38.6 mins
PG/SG Ellis = 35.7 mins
SF Azubuike = 32.1 mins
SF Maggette = 31.1 mins
C Biedrins = 30.0 mins
PG Watson = 24.5 mins
SG Morrow = 22.6 mins
PF/C Turiaf = 21.5 mins
SG Belinelli = 21.0 mins
PF Randolph = 17.9 mins
PF Wright = 17.6 mins
PF Kurz = 11.1 mins
PF/C Davidson = 7.9 mins
Small-ball, FTW.
Nellie hates playing bigs, he especially hates playing ROOKIE bigs. You guys are insane if you think Nellie will play Jordan Hill. Wake up.
by Bob on Jun 15, 2009 2:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Two points
First, please re-read the captain’s post:
check his teams from before the most recent warriors teams (you know, the ones that had a ton of wing players and no big men), he’ll play bigs when he has them.
That eam you listed DOES NOT count as “before most recent Warriors teams”, in fact it was the definition of “most recent Warriors team” (i.e. a team that had tons of wings and few big men).
Second,
he especially hates playing ROOKIE bigs.
Ummm… http://sports.jrank.org/pages/5193/Webber-Chris-Rookie-Year.html
Yeah, he hated playing Webber so much that Webber became the first NBA rookie to attain 1,000 points, 500 rebounds, 250 assists, 150 blocks, and 75 steals.
Nellie doesn’t like playing rookies who are not ready to play NBA ball, as Hill is supposedly “the most NBA ready big man this side of Griffen”, I think he’s most qualified to get PT if drafted. What makes you think he’d play Flynn, Jennings, Holliday, or anybody else we’d draft any more than Hill?
So, stop referencing the most recent past when requested to do otherwise, and stop lying about what Nellie does and does not do when there’s clearly real supporting evidence that directly contradicts your assertions. Nellie will play whoever gives his team the best chance of winning on a given night, end of story. Typical rookies don’t fit that too well. Mediocre big men also typically don’t fit that too well.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 15, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Yea I guess I coulda just waited a minute and put +1
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 15, 2009 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nellie hates playing players that aren’t good or aren’t ready. Big guys almost always take longer to develop. Is Jordan Hill gonna come in and play 25-30 mins a game from the start? No, but nobody is saying that. As with all Nellie coached teams, match-ups will determine the number of minutes everyone other than the top 2-3 guys on the team, get. Will we see some Maggette at the 4? Yes, but only because he’s one of our best players and Nellie strives to get his best players minutes. Cap told you to check Nellie’s other teams, but instead of doing that you just continued to spout the same old made up, but now popular and commonly accepted fallacy that Nellie always plays small as much as possible. It simply isn’t true. Last season we had a team where, for most of the year, 4 of our 5 best players were wings. Our talent is still a bit concentrated at the wing spots, but it won’t be to nearly the same degree as last year if Wright and Biedrins stay healthy , Randolph builds on a strong second half and we add the 2nd or 3rd most NBA ready big in the draft.
Thing A
by sam23 on Jun 15, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Will we see some Maggette at the 4? Yes, but only because he’s one of our best players
Are you feeling OK sam? Been to any pig farms lately? Maybe you should get yourself checked out…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 15, 2009 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ronny Turiaf and Anthony Randolph were two of our best players
but they can’t even get more mins than Belinelli or CJ frikken Watson. haha
by Bob on Jun 15, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
randolph’s minutes went up considerably in the second half of the season. 17 mpg over the whole year considering how little he played initially is pretty impressive.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 15, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nellie hates playing bigs, he especially hates playing ROOKIE bigs.
This gets repeated, but each time it does not get any closer to being true.
Nellie hates playing lousy bigs, he especially hates playing lousy rookie bigs, but when he’s had quality bigs, even quality rookie bigs, he’s played them. When Nellie has had big men who have been competent, he’s played them, even when they’ve been rookies.
I don’t know if Hill would qualify as a quality big. Something in my gut says that he isn’t and his numbers at ‘Zona suggest that he’s as high as he is based on a weaker draft class rather than anything else, but you never know.
by jae on Jun 15, 2009 10:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Dogpile!!!
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 15, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ronny Turiaf was EASILY one of our top 5 players
But somehow he can only get 21 MPG.
You guys are in denial. LOL
by Bob on Jun 15, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ronny turiaf was almost always in foul trouble.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 15, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Randolphj and Ronny are not lousy bigs
17 mpg, and 21 mpg. what excuse for Nellie are you gonna come up with for this one?
by Bob on Jun 15, 2009 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
biedrins was playing in front of ronny and biedrins was better than him. randolph was bad at the beginning of the year. i suppose those are pretty lousy excuses though…
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 15, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What excuse? How about “reality”.
For Randolph: Initially, he was terrible. He was lousy. Let’s not confound what we think he’ll become with what he was. He got much more time as the season progressed and he was playing better, but he was still a rather raw rookie, prone to some mistakes.
For Turiaf: Although he’s a fan favorite, his overall production isn’t enormous. For a big, he’s a very poor rebounder and on a team employing one big at a time with a problem on the glass in general, this is a negative. He’s got a reasonable shot when open, but his low shooting volume (lower than the “garbage points” that Biedrins gets) suggests this doesn’t happen that often. Blocks seem to bring popularity even if the actual value is not as great as one thinks. [It isn’t a guarantee that the same fate will await Ronny, but a former fan favorite who many thought should get more time is Adonal Foyle, another block-happy somewhat undersized center who didn’t score much.] Turiaf was also often in foul trouble and split time with Biedrins, who scores more effectively and efficiently and owns the glass.
by jae on Jun 17, 2009 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
We won 29 games with that small-ball CRAP
Are you seriously trying to argue that Nellie did the right thing playing Azubuike or Maggette at PF? Ronny at PF would have been a MUCH BETTER option. 29 games!! Good grief.
by Bob on Jun 18, 2009 1:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Hill is the BPA then pick him.
Never a bad thing to have enough big men.
The cream rises to the top.
Check out Goallineblitz - Free Football MMORPG
Build players, Build teams, watch games...
http://goallineblitz.com/game/signup.pl?ref=4892220
by FLAxwless on Jun 15, 2009 1:42 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
BPA BPA BPA BPA
If [insert BPA’s name here] is the BPA, then pick him.
FLAxwless, I don’t think we can say that enough.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 15, 2009 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But…but…but….we’re only a PG….and a SG….and a SF….and a PF….and a C away from a championship! If we can just fill that position in the draft, we’ll be raising a banner in ’10!
by Missing Barry on Jun 15, 2009 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You’ve got the solution right there! We need to draft the second incarnation of Magic Johnson.
by jae on Jun 15, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's not nearly enough
Draft conjoined twins so that we can get two for the price of one.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 15, 2009 11:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Lebron really wanted to, I’m sure he could do it, too. Lebron + the team we already have…definitely a championship waiting to happen.
by Missing Barry on Jun 15, 2009 12:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
LBJ is the closest thing to Magic since Magic. But he never threw up 42 points, 15 rebounds, seven assists, and three steals in the finals as a center. Magic is Magic, Jordan was Jordan. Magic:LBJ as Jordan:Kobe, but neither LBJ nor Kobe can hold a candle to either Magic or Jordan.
If we added LBJ without taking anything away, we’d be the head contender… as long as Monta and Biedrins stay healthy.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 15, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
" Magic:LBJ as Jordan:Kobe, but neither LBJ nor Kobe can hold a candle to either Magic or Jordan."
Eh, I think Jordan and Kobe’s games are much more similar than LBJ and Magic. I was really just pointing out that if Lebron wanted to, he probably could play all 5 positions (not that he’s Magic). As for Lebron…maybe he can’t hold a candle to them yet, but there’s a very real chance he turns out to be the best player of all-time. I never thought I’d say that about anyone after seeing Jordan.
by Missing Barry on Jun 15, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I never thought I’d say that about anyone after seeing Jordan.
Welcome to getting old. Records are made to be broken, and there will always be better players in the future. The future is infinite, there’s always hope.
As for LeBron actually getting there, like with the Blazers, I’m with Mizzouri: “Show me”. LeBron has been great and should continue to be great, but he’s played 530 games in the NBA averaging over 41 minutes a game. He’s as old 24, he’s a big guy. He’s only really got 7-8 more years left in him. He’s never won a championship, he’s never been close (losing in the ECFs twice and getting swept in the finals is great, but not close to a championship). While there’s a “real chance he turns out to be the best player of all time,” it’s more likely that he turns out to be the best player of all time never to win a championship. We’ll see. I don’t know which way I’m hoping.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 16, 2009 7:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eh I dunno if “there will always be better players in the future” holds true. Babe Ruth still stands out from his peers more than any other player in baseball history, even though players now are unquestionably “better” baseball players, and that’s the argument for why he’s the greatest of all-time.
Jordan didn’t win a championship until his 7th year in the league. Lebron’s been in the league 6 years. I have no doubt Lebron will win at least one championship – the only thing that could stop him are injuries. He has plenty of time, and we haven’t even had a chance to see him play with just some talent around him. All I’m saying is Larry Hughes was the second leading scorer on the team that made the finals…
by Missing Barry on Jun 16, 2009 7:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And they got swept...
And he hasn’t been back.
As I said, we’ll see, but Jordan won 6 championships in a row. That’s a pretty tall order. To me, saying LBJ has a real chance of being the best ever is like saying A-Rod has a chance to break the home run record. Sure, LBJ might do it, but he’s going to have to be even better than he already is for like 8 more years…
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 16, 2009 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“While there’s a "real chance he turns out to be the best player of all time," it’s more likely that he turns out to be the best player of all time never to win a championship.”
“To me, saying LBJ has a real chance of being the best ever is like saying A-Rod has a chance to break the home run record.”
Sounds to me like you agree with me. There’s a real chance he becomes the best ever. I didn’t say it will happen. I didn’t even call it likely. I just said there’s actually a possibility, which is something I won’t even consider with anyone else.
“Sure, LBJ might do it, but he’s going to have to be even better than he already is for like 8 more years…”
I don’t see why you wouldn’t expect Lebron to be better than he already is for 8 more years. Who knows how many championships he’ll win, but his skills should improve. 8 more years for Lebron = 2 more years for Kobe (in terms of their age/time in the NBA), and I think it’s a reasonable expectation that Kobe, even if he declines some, will still be one of the top players in the league the next 2 years.
by Missing Barry on Jun 16, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A lot of things have to fall into place perfectly
He has to get a better supporting cast, he has to stay injury free, he has to win many championships which means he can’t go up against hot teams. He has to improve his jumpshot, his 3 pointer, and his post game. At this point, it’s also possible that Howard could become the greatest big man ever to play the game. If he develops 2-3 post moves, he’s golden… and if he takes FT lessons from Rick Barry, even better. If he won the championship this year, maybe we can start having that discussion. Since he failed, again, it’s too early to even start thinking of him in the “best ever” discussion.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 16, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure what this is getting at…? (And also your use of “he” at the end is not clear whether you’re talking about Howard or Lebron)
by Missing Barry on Jun 16, 2009 9:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
:-P
Realized the same thing after hitting “Post”.
If LBJ had won a championship this year, I might start discussing “he could become the best ever.” Until he has provided anything of substance, it’s as silly to include him in that debate as it is to include Dwight Howard in the “he could be come the best big man ever” debate. It’s possible, but not likely, and he’s done nothing of real substance yet.
They’re very good young-ish players, but they have to keep up their level of performance to be considered great, and they have to improve their level of play AND win more to be truly considered one of the greats. LBJ is one of the better players we’ve ever seen in the NBA, one of the greats? Not yet. And as I’ve said, I’m a “show me” kind of guy. The hype thus far has always been greater than the substance.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 16, 2009 9:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course there’s a long way to go. Lebron is 24 with an MVP though (a lot more than Dwight can say) – if he’s healthy and just continues to put up the type of performance he’s already accomplished he’ll be one of the great players in history. Of course it won’t make him the best ever as he has a long way to go still, but the fact that’s he’s already the best player in the league makes me acknowledge his chance to be the best ever. Until players like Dwight start putting up MVP numbers, though, I won’t even acknowledge his chance of becoming the best bigman ever.
So that was the difference I was originally getting at when I said “real chance”.
by Missing Barry on Jun 16, 2009 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we added LBJ without taking anything away, we’d be the head contender… as long as Monta and Biedrins stay healthy.
thankfully, he’s a free agent after next year and we have all sorts of cap space to work with to put together a quality offer for him.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 15, 2009 1:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
crap, that’s a reply to DFiB above. nothing like making a stupid joke and then botching the reply.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on Jun 15, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Your computer must have the same disease as Sam's
As for getting LBJ, all we’ve got to do is get Crawfart to opt out and trade Maggette for an expiring. Then we’ve got enough cap space, right? Do we need to jettison Jax too? If you could promise me LBJ if we could get $18M under the cap, I’d trade away our next three draft picks (minus whichever one goes to NJ) to get expirings for Jax, Maggs, and Craw.
Sigh… back to reality.
You have been DFiBrillated.
by Dubs fan in Boston on Jun 16, 2009 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
