Do we REALLY want Jordan Hill? Smokescreen....
by tafkasam on Jun 25, 2009 7:54 AM PDT
Email
PrintCall me crazy, but I don't see any logic in drafting Jordan Hill. As far as I see, this guy only broke out in college his 3rd year when he was 21 and older than all the competition against an extremely weak pac10. His sophomore year he struggled against the younger Lopez Twins, Kevin Love, players like Ryan Anderson and Mbah A Moute. He does have some tools to make him an effective NBA player, but I doubt anyone sees him as an impact player in this league.
More so, entering this season we already have 2 undeveloped project PFs. Nelson has made it pretty clear, for the immediate future, Randoph's position is at the 4. Brandan Wright, despite his injuries, has shown some impovement, and is too young to be labelled a bust. Both are younger than Jordan Hill. Both Larry Riley and Don Nelson have said we need to add size, with Riley using his now imfamous 'beef' statement. Don Nelson never been a fan of an overly young squad, so I have to believe he does not want THREE project Power Forwards. More so than anything I believe the Warriors want to add a PF via free agency. A third PF who is inexperienced does not help this team
Now something thats not been overly discussed here is Don Nelson's propensity for smokescreen picks. Does anone remember Yinka Dare? Nelson could not be more in love with Dare going into the draft, siting size and athletism. Afterwards, he more or less laughed at the New Jersey Nets, thus donning "The Don" one of the kings of draft day bluffing. Even recently, he has been quoted as saying "I don't want to lie to you, but if its about the draft... I will!"
Here is what I believe, both Riley and Nelson realize they need an upgrade inside, but it won't come through the draft. Between Randolph, Wright and Biedrins we are inexerienced enough upfront. We need someone who can come in and give consistant minutes, like Ronny. Obviously we'd love someone like Amare or Bosh, but in realit if we got a player who knew his role and limitations, played within himself and the system, that would be a immense improvement to go along with the developement of our young 4's.
I believe this is all a smokescreen to draft Curry. Curry is probably the highest basketball IQ player in the draft, and most NBA ready of projected top 10 (two things Riley and Nelson value). Second, its known the Knicks love him, so much so they considered moving up for him. If the Warriors show'd interest, I believe the knicks would jump up for him. However I believe Golden State is trying to stay quiet on there interest. Riley elluded in his most recent interview they like him, but more or less focused on Hill.
Lastly this trade that clears may point to warriors not drafting a PG, but think again... Speedy will never see a uniform, he is here more or less for a midseason trade chip and expiring contract. Acie Law is a combo guard but still just a backup. Point being he is not nearly good enough to influence the warriors draft selection. IMO this was a pure salary dump and gives us interesting options come trade deadline.
Curry recently said, he had no problem playing for warriors. (source: Media Day Interviews ). He went as far to say, a scheduling conflict happened that a work out with Golden state never happened. I think this could be purposely set up by Riley so to not play our hand early.
In the end of the day, I just find it really difficult to see the Warriors selecting another project Power Forward. I don't see that as what the Nelson or Management want.
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
59 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Interesting theory — I hope it’s true.
I do think Nellie just flat-out doesn’t like Wright (or his game, anyway), and I don’t expect Wright to be a Warrior come November. But it would indeed be strange to draft a third young PF and then try to trade one of them, after you’ve already reduced your leverage. If the team already has some deal involving Wright on the table, then drafting Hill could make sense. But if the plan is to just trade Wright at some point, then it seems like poor maneuvering.
Your point about the Knicks is a good one. Of course, Curry’s been heavily rumored to go ahead of us of late, so it’s not like Nellie could’ve assured himself Curry with a smokescreen at seven. But if he did want Curry, it’d definitely make sense to keep quiet about it.
by onlxn on Jun 25, 2009 8:27 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Now something thats not been overly discussed here is Don Nelson’s propensity for smokescreen picks.
Seriously? Thank god its finally draft day so I only have to read the word “smokescreen” 372 more times until next draft season starts.
Thing A
"no homo"
by sam23 on Jun 25, 2009 8:32 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I have this odd feeling...
that if Curry isn’t available, and nobody not named Jordan Hill falls from the top 6, we’re gonna snag Demar DeRozan. We haven’t heard a peep about him on the Ws rumor circuit, but that sort of close-to-the-vest play is pretty Nellie-esque. DeRozan certainly isn’t getting any play on this site; I wonder how it would go over.
So if it looks like Griffin, Rubio, Thabeet, Evans, a Sacramento PG, and another guard go in the top 6 that means either Curry or Harden fall to us along with Hill right? Curry and Hill are getting tons of play around here, why not much Harden talk? I never really expected he’d be there at 7, so I had never really given him a whole lot of consideration, thoughts?
Thing A
"no homo"
i agree
People still think I’m crazy when I say Harden may fall but I see it as a possibility, a small one, but still might happen. Griffin, rubio, and thabeet will be the top 3. Sacramento is going PG and although I have no clue which one that leaves minnesota with their two picks. Evans is very high on there board and I don’t think they would draft both Harden and evans? they may draft Evans and Curry, or Evans and Flynn. This is all if Evans isn’t drafted by Sacramento… But if Harden falls we better take him. I’m not believing Nellie when he says he would like s-jax at the 2 next year especially with the weight he is gaining I guarantee he goes to the 3.
by FeartheBeard4 on Jun 25, 2009 9:31 AM PDT up reply actions
Harden won't get by the Timberwolves
they need some back court help and they just traded Foye. Harden is a top 5 pick, and after his combine he only helped that tag. I say we draft Hill at 7 if he falls if not DeRozan he’s one of the bigger players in this draft with all the physical tools to be a star in the league and we could trade Maggette freely once we get him. Not to mention unlike Maggette he’ll probably play some solid defense.
I personally am against picking any of these little tiny guards everyone is so hyped on, but i would take Evans who I also see having some great abilbity and some awesome length.
It's all about the killer cross-over baby!
by warriorsfiend on Jun 25, 2009 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Unless..
Curry is the “Sac PG” and Harden is “another guard”. I don’t see either of those guys falling.
1. Griff
2. Rubio (trade to Sac? I smell a smokescreen [take that, sam])
3. Thabeet
4. Evans (the other partner of the trade)
5. Harden
6. Curry
if the wolves got harden and curry… wow, that’s a great day for them.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
+1
They indeed would be the winners of the draft if they got Harden and Curry, a long with whoever they pick with their #18 and #28 picks.
Gerald Madkins.
that looks so good you’d have to think they might be better off standing pat if they think it’s possible to get both guys. if they traded up with okc to grab rubio (assuming memphis takes thabeet), okc could very well grab harden and considering how much evans related chatter is coming out of ‘sota, it’s possible they’d go with him over curry. i’d be disappointed with a rubio/evans backcourt in comparison to a curry/harden backcourt.
it could also get interesting if they wanted curry to go with rubio, that backcourt is very intriguing too and a little better talent-wise; it would come down to if the wolves are willing to draft bpa instead of fit in that situation, because it requires them to play curry at the 2 when his best nba position is probably the point.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
acb <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<nba
but, ya, you got me
can’t help it, every time I look at Rubio I see Robby Benson in a bad basketball movie
We never know WTH Nellie will do...
I guess it depends on whether is Scotch is single malt or blended that morning? I’m worried that Riley “Where’s the Beef?” attitude could persuade them to take Johnson. Not that he’s a bad player, but I think it would be too high for him. More meat than Hill and with a better jumper?
We’ll see, at this point, I’m done guessing, lets just get it over with!
+1
Exactly-
Here is what I believe, both Riley and Nelson realize they need an upgrade inside, but it won’t come through the draft. Between Randolph, Wright and Biedrins we are inexerienced enough upfront. We need someone who can come in and give consistant minutes, like Ronny. Obviously we’d love someone like Amare or Bosh, but in realit if we got a player who knew his role and limitations, played within himself and the system, that would be a immense improvement to go along with the developement of our young 4’s.
This has been my exact sentiment all along. IMO we’re either going to use the pick to acquire this sort of player, or if it doesn’t come at that price, we will exceed that need and pick-up a legit front court option.
I’ve also been advocating for the possibility of still drafting for this need. Tyler Hansbrough, IMO, is the guy who we can have play with-in himself and produce right away, at least 10-20 min off the bench.
Chris Cohan- YOU'RE FIRED!
OT
hoopsworld has an article this morning with some general draft thoughts and what I found most interesting was the Rondo talk. There seems to be a real issue with Rondo and his teammates or Rondo and Ainge. This article says Boston really likes Evans and suggests Sacramento could try to deal the #4 for Rondo. If thats true, I think the Warriors should be throwing some combination of the #7, Belinelli, Azubuike, Morrow, and Wright at the Celtics in an attempt to land Rondo.
Thing A
"no homo"
in abiding by the soon to be adopted new posting rules (?) this comment should have had more elaboration & analysis
In their attempt to shed cap $pace for the FA Frenzy in 2010, NYK wants to move Lee rather than pay him an expensive extension, replace him with the less expensive draftee Hill and net an inexpensive Rubio in the process. According to reports, Lee has no qualms playing in Memphis – a welcome message for the Grizz FO these days.
in abiding by the soon to be adopted new posting rules (?)
posters should not comment to their own comments …
Evans
If he is there for us at 7 I think we have to take him. I agree he probably has high bust potential, but his upside is ridiculous. Even if he just becomes a good backcourt defender he would be a great addition to our team. At 7 I think he is BPA, the best fit for us, and the player with the greatest star potential. If it comes down to DeRozan, Harden, or Hill, I think trading the pick is the way to go.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
I'm all for Evans. He'd be my first choice.
Harden or Flynn at 7.
Curry. Jennings. Hill if we trade down 5-6 spots.
by phiLthyphiL on Jun 25, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Haha
Funny: out of that group, Evans is the guy I’d be the least happy with. Who was the last kinda sorta tall kinda sorta point guard who blew up into a star? Who’s Evans’ NBA comp? He just seems to have way too much Javaris Crittenton in him — a guy doomed to remain perpetually “intriguing.”
Give me the guy who’s preternaturally fast (Jennings), has preternatural leadership abilities (Flynn), or is just preternaturally great at playing basketball (Curry). Give me one quality I can hang my hat on.
If any of Flynn, Jennings or Curry is on the board and we grab Evans (or worse, Jordan “Hooray, I’m tall” Hill) I’ll be pretty bummed. But what do I know…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 25, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions
Magic Johnson
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
just kidding, but seriously.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
I'm fine with Jennings and his homerun potential...
But with Jennings I just see an uber-athletic version of Sebastian Telfair with an equally inconsistent jumper. If he’s going to be buried on the bench in Italy, he’s going to enjoy being in Nellie’s doghouse for as long as he’s here. I’m fine with stowing him on the bench and seeing if he can grow in a few years
I really like Flynn and think he can be as an equally explosive scorer as Monta and agree with his leadership ability.
Curry. The basketball IQ yes, the basketball pedigree. But at Davidson? Putting up numbers at mid-major doesn’t excite me too much. I seriously doubt his ability to defend in the NBA. He’s not very athletic and pairing him with Monta would seriously worry me. Dell Curry was a hell of a player…
With Evans I see a little bit of Stackhouse/Penny. Sure he’s a combo guard but he’s got the NBA ready body, can excel with the pick and roll and can nearly score at will. “Did I say he was long?” I think he can create for others better than Curry can. I can see where you get the Javaris Crittenton tidbit from because he oozes with potential.
(At Davidson, I don’t count when teams would throw double-teams at him constantly for the sake of not letting him put up a shot, and to get the ball to the open man “creating for others.” Sure, the kid can shoot, but it’s his shooting ability that made other teams try to gameplan/double team him. Now what about at the next level when there are superior/longer defenders on him. I don’t see him being able to do much outside of running off of screens and catching and shooting. His ball-handling isn’t good enough IMO.)
by phiLthyphiL on Jun 25, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
"Who was the last kinda sorta tall kinda sorta point guard who blew up into a star?"
Dwyane Wade
"We Deserve"
anyone but hill
Good call on Evans. I see his NBA comp as Larry Hughes who also came out after frosh year. But Hughes was faster, more athletic with better handles and still couldn’t make it as NBA point. Still I’d take Evans over Hill, I think he could be pretty good + he’s young and has skills. I’ll go out on a limb right now and say Earl Clark will be a better NBA player than Hill and I’m not even that high on Clark.
Love Flynn. Add to leadership abilities: great leaper with strength and athleticism (not crazy Monta/Westbrook athleticism but definitely on next level) + wants the last shot and knows he’ll make it.
Also like Derozan. I think at the seven you’ve got to go for someone with the chance to be a star in the league and this guy ’s got the tools plus he imroved throughout his first year and is only 19 (I think).
Evans is a long shot as big guard and Derozan is better prospect at the 2 or maybe 3 position. Plus he kind of reminds you of Kobe when you watch him.
I think it’s a great call to look for single outstanding qualities that could make players a standout in NBA rather than focussing on weaknesses bc they all have weaknesses. NBA scouts know this and that’s why Flynn (athleticism), Evans (size), and Curry (scoring) are rising up the draft. Jennings probably would too but he’s kind of an enigma. Eric Snow made a good call to the effect that he’s really skinny to be a full time point guard and not really focussed on getting others involved. Snow liked his talent but saw him more as a sixth man spark off bench type who would score and energize team. I think he’d be exciting though- I cant’ call whether I’d take him or Evans. My priority order:
1. Flynn 2. Derozan 3. Curry 4. Evans/Jennings 5. Anyone but Hill (T Williams, Clark, JJohnson, Lawson)
Everything could be all one big smokescreen and Jrue Holiday could be the pick.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 25, 2009 10:28 AM PDT reply actions
jordan hill
will not do anything in the pros. He played center in college ball but no way could play center in the NBA.
CHAD FORD
says 75% confident Warriors take Hill.
I might need a new TV after today.
So how can we avert this disaster? Is it too late for an Anyone But Hill movement?
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jun 25, 2009 10:46 AM PDT up reply actions
I think that’s what we have been implying.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jun 25, 2009 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions
whoa
bite your tongues! (gotta rep for Hill, seems like no one else is around here!)
We don’t need Hill to be a starter right away – although he could be one in the near future, his skill set of rebounding, being able to score inside, & being able to defend inside would instantly make him the most versatile of big on our roster – others can do some of that, but none of Andris, AR, Turiaf, nor BWright can do all three at a high level. Add Hill to that mix and we now can mix&match bigs with more complete skill sets. Hill gives us more depth inside than we’ve ever had before – either to play or trade. Any point guard we pick is a backup. Even Curry – unless another trade is in the offing with a guard, is backing up Monta. And we have puhlenty of wings who can play SG/SF.
ok, target painted, fire away
Beyond his arrival potentially hurting Wright’s trade value, I don’t really have a problem with Hill in terms of fit. I just haven’t seen anybody say he’s really good. Nobody above us seems to be looking at him, and the only other team I’ve seen him connected with is the Knicks, who seem more interesting in his cheapness compared to David Lee rather than his awesomeness.
I just feel like a truly promising big man wouldn’t slide so freely to seven, as we all expect him to. If he does, and he’s really good, then awesome. But nobody seems to be projecting stardom for him, so it’s basically us just adding a big body to place the possibly-just-as-good-or-better Brandan Wright. I’m not married to Wright, but that just doesn’t seem like the most productive — or fun — use of the pick.
I agree. Its not that Hill wouldn’t fit but at seven there’s gotta be someone you think will be really good (possible all-star). There usually is even in bad drafts. I think the anti-Hill contigent just doesn’t see Hill as that guy. He just didn’t show any thing that special although he was a productive college center. If you’re Riley/Nelson its just hard to believe that you don’t think at least one of (Flynn, Derozan, Jennings, Evans) will be a better player than Hill. So take the talented guard you like best and leave the journeyman big guy.
devil's advocate sayz
…. in addition to NYK, Mem was connected to Hill earlier (if they trade out of #2 or Rubio/Thabeet not going there) but I don’t have the link, anyway early on Hill was tabbed as a top 5 pick, sliding to #7 isn’t quite a monumental chasm
… the logic about a truly promising player sliding to #7 could as easily be applied to Jennings as Hill, and the reports that Jennings “people” are unsure whether he’d be embarrassed to be left alone in the green room send a signal that they admit they are not confident he’s going in the top 10 – hardly the case for stardom there (not saying you said that, am just using Jennings as an example).
… BWright’s trade value should not be impacted significantly by the arrival of Hill, we can easily keep and play both and AR (most of the good playoff teams were 4-5 deep in bigs), and Wright’s trade value is set by his quality of play to date. All the GMs have video on all the players, they have scout reports, stats etc. They know what he’s done and that’s going to set his value more than whether Hill is here.
… imo, if we get a truly useful player – a rotation capable player, then we got at least good value out of the pick. Whoever backs up Ellis at PG is not going to get that many minutes, while another capable big who would fill in around our other bigs’ skill sets seems provides value. I agree with gsfool that we would really like a better player at #7, and a possible all-star, but everyone knows this isn’t the most heralded draft. I doubt both Curry and Hill are available at #7, if Hill’s gone then he was at top-5/6 pick after all. If he’s gone and we end up with Curry so be it. If they’re both gone, yikes. Hope we can trade down for Lawson or Blair (another target painted!).
the logic about a truly promising player sliding to #7 could as easily be applied to Jennings as Hill
True. And personally, I wouldn’t be too jazzed about Jennings at seven, either. But I do think that big men, in particular, tend to go early if they show real potential. GMs jump all over any big man with a pulse. Hill is 6’10", 235, and played college ball in a high-profile conference… most people still don’t seem to be talking about him. I don’t think that the “wisdom of crowds” angle is strong enough on its own to say we shouldn’t pick him, but I do find it to be worrisome.
BWright’s trade value should not be impacted significantly by the arrival of Hill, we can easily keep and play both and AR (most of the good playoff teams were 4-5 deep in bigs), and Wright’s trade value is set by his quality of play to date. All the GMs have video on all the players, they have scout reports, stats etc. They know what he’s done and that’s going to set his value more than whether Hill is here.
Yeah, I think that’s largely true. But in the absence of a good reason to pick Hill (such as “he’s really good”), I can’t help but look at reasons not to. The Wright thing qualifies, in my mind… it’s a small reason, but a reason. I do think GMs are sometimes skeptical, fairly or not, of offered players that the offering team never uses.
imo, if we get a truly useful player – a rotation capable player, then we got at least good value out of the pick. Whoever backs up Ellis at PG is not going to get that many minutes, while another capable big who would fill in around our other bigs’ skill sets seems provides value.
I guess I won’t be super-upset if Hill (or whoever) becomes a genuinely useful rotation piece. But it just seems to me that a kinda deep, kinda crappy team like us shouldn’t be settling for a guy who fits into a fairly lame puzzle… we should be swinging for the fences here, shooting for a guy who could move one of our nominal starters aside. At least Jennings, with all the question marks around him, has big upside. I dunno.
If they’re both gone Derozan or Flynn should be available which is what I’m hoping for. Man imagine a Monta. AR and Derozan core in terms of athleticism. He’d be our future 2 or 3 if Monta ends up at the 2. Flynn reminds me of KJ a little; a great athlete not just in terms of running, jumping etc but like if he wasn’t a basketball player he’d be a shortstop or center fielder. He’d be a great backup point and potential starter if the great Monta point experiment fails. He’s the 6 foot guy who dunks over your biggest guy and stabs your heart out with a big three pointer. I think he’ll be very good.
why is everyone all over Curry????
look at his game, it is made for college and out of the majority of lottery prospects, his game (other than shooting) will have a hard time translating to the NBA speed and flow. Remember, he played for Davidson and was the college version of LeBron where he had to do it all on his squad, thus his numbers and production are highly inflated. I’m not saying he is a bust, but out of all the options the Warriors got, Curry is not the safest and is not the best fit that SOOOO MANY are jumping to say. It just blows my mind at people’s influence by the media hype.
Who would you suggest picking then?
If Curry was on the board while we were picking, who would be the better option to pick? In all honesty, it’s no lie that this is a weak draft, there are not as many talented and promising players in this draft than in the previous ones. If Curry is there at #7, I would say to pick him because he would be the BPA at the time. Assuming that James Harden goes before #7.
Gerald Madkins.
LISTEN MAN!!!
Those of us who are real Nellie fans know about his B.S., but what’s the first rule of fight club???
DONT TELL ANYONE ABOUT NELLIE’S SECRET BLUFFS!
Otherwise it’s not a secret anymore. That’s where the rest of Nellie’s true genius lies, in his mind games.
P.S. Not to go off topic, but has anyone else noticed how Mr. Riley is disclosing a lottttttttt more information than Mullie did? I have a feeling he has Nellie behind his ear, telling him to give a lot of answers, (whether or not they are true). I just find it fascinating.
Hope we’re not disappointed tonight.
Judge: "In the case of 3 month old Tracie Taylor, we find that Dirk Nowitzki .... IS the father!"
Dirk [in Hassellhoff accent]: "That baby don't look like me!"
by AR4 on Jun 25, 2009 10:57 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Latest Chad Ford mock...
has B Jennings going 19.
Hinrich
Let’s trade Mags and the 7th pick to Chicago for Hinirch and the 16th pick. We don’t need to get a rook for the PG spot. He could defend the bigger guards and leave Monte at his natural position which is SG.
by KillaCrossOver on Jun 25, 2009 11:34 AM PDT reply actions
Bulls have Deng
Whose contract is so much worse than Maggette’s. They play the same position for the most part. Why would Chicago take Maggette?
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 25, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
I agree that Hinrich would be a good solution to PG though.
Confident Marco Belinelli supporter
by Doctor Kajita on Jun 25, 2009 12:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Although I do like Hinrich...
he would not really fit our style of play, or “Nellie-ball”, so to speak. Hinrich flourishes more in a half-court system…hence, why he will probably be heading to the Blazers very soon. Ultimately, Hinrich would not be the answer, unless we change our style of play.
Gerald Madkins.
You are the man. Seriously. Great foresight. Props.
My religion is A'slamic.
by WhoNeedsReligionWhenYaGotBaseball on Jun 25, 2009 9:24 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"
Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
Most Commented
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
