What's new
By:

Patrick Beverley Available

stitches said:
Our chances for what? Keeping Hayward? I just don't think Hayward would see this as a step forward. I can't see a universe where he looks at Beverley on the Jazz and Hill leaving and thinks "we are getting better". It looks like a step back. What's the PF you are going to get to make up for it. The problem with the PF position was that Favors was injured, not that we didn't have anyone.
Click to expand...

Think about Bev instead of Burks. Of course Bev isn't better than Hill; and nobody would pitch it that way to Hay. Bev >>>>>>> Burks.
 
I don't understand why we wouldn't try to add this guy. Let's go through the list:

- we have $13 million in cap space that disappears on July 1
- Houston desperately wants to clear salaries to pursue players in July
- he's a proven, quality player who can defend
- he's on one of the best two year contracts in the entire league
- we need a PG next year yet the guy can still play some SG and can defend PG, SG and SF if we were to bring back Hill and Exum

If the price is low (#30 or #42 or #55 or a combo of those 3), then we have to do it.
 
stitches said:
Once you are over the cap(we are) letting players go don't make you better. You don't get flexibility by letting Hill go.
Click to expand...
Yes but more money being spent might matter to you if you were the one spending it.
 
I guess if I had to summarize my feelings on this, I'd say this is my preference:

1. Keep Hill on team-friendly contract
2. Trade for Bledsoe/Dragic/Rubio(don't like the Rubio fit).
3. Trade for Beverley/Lin/etc.
4. Go with Exum starting at PG next year...

I think 1 and 2 give you good shot at Hayward. I think 3 is better than 4, but I don't think it's close to enough to make Hayward think this is going in a good direction. 4 - forget about it.
 
stitches said:
Once you are over the cap(we are) letting players go don't make you better. You don't get flexibility by letting Hill go.
Click to expand...
Also isn't it possible that having hill at 20 million vs having Beverly at 6 or whatever would have an impact on us resigning players? (Exum, favs, hood, etc)

Like maybe the owners are willing to pay a certain amount in luxury tax penalties and George hill money takes us over the amount they are willing to spend but Beverly money doesnt.
 
NAOS said:
why are you asking that question?

I think the answer is board of trustees (Millers).
Click to expand...

I'm just not sure this ever happens. Maybe they do... I don't know. I've never been given the impression that they will do it.
 
stitches said:
Our chances for what? Keeping Hayward? I just don't think Hayward would see this as a step forward. I can't see a universe where he looks at Beverley on the Jazz and Hill leaving and thinks "we are getting better". It looks like a step back. What's the PF you are going to get to make up for it. The problem with the PF position was that Favors was injured, not that we didn't have anyone.
Click to expand...
What if hayward thinks that Beverly being on the team is better than just X mack and neto and that makes him stay though?

Like maybe Hayward isnt just "hill stays, and if not I'm gone"
Maybe hayward is like "we were really good last season and hill barely played.... if we have Beverly actually on the court rather than injured then we will be better than last year."

We just don't know so if there is a good player to be had for cheap then grab that mother ****er
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top