Yes, I said Grant Hill is still very good. Very good means just that. Very good. Not great, not spectacular, just very good at what he does.Terry_Tate;1218594 wrote:I hope the Lakers miss the playoffs.
But seriously, when I hear that Grant Hill is very good Im thinking at least 16 and 6. Then I look up his stats and he averaged 10.5 and 3.5 last year, which isn't bad at all given his age, just not what I would call very good. I don't doubt that there are a few stretches where he looks good and I know he has a high basketball IQ, I just thought the very good talk was Laker homerism.
And he's an instant upgrade over MWP just from the mental standpoint alone.
hoops23;1218622 wrote:Yes, I said Grant Hill is still very good. Very good means just that. Very good. Not great, not spectacular, just very good at what he does.
10.5/3.5 was during 28 MPG...
That's very good.
And I'm far from a Laker fan.
I just don't think you're grasping what I'm saying, seeing as how you pretty much just made my point.Terry_Tate;1218642 wrote:We have waaaaaay different definitions of very good. He would have been 92nd in scoring had he qualified for stats, 110th adjusted per 48. Not even going to get into rebounds. He's very good for a guy off the bench, he's very good for your 4th or 5th best player, he's damn good for being 39, but there is just no way he's very good overall.
hoops23;1218647 wrote:I just don't think you're grasping what I'm saying, seeing as how you pretty much just made my point.
On the Lakers, he's not going to be better than Kobe, Nash, Bynum, or Gasol.. Depending on who they keep bring back, he's likely their 5-7th best player. He's a very good player at what he does. I expressed that in my last post.
You took my first post for face value as if I were talking about he's very good now compared to guys like Bron, Kobe, KD, etc... No. I just meant he's very good (at what he does for a team)...
karen lotz;1218705 wrote:Tweets from Broussard:
For all the haters, I was off yesterday too. Any work done was bonus. We get days off just like u. I got a life beyond the NBA.
While u wasting energy hatin' on me, I'm enjoying time with me family. If I can't relate to that I feel sorry for u.
LOL
Brooklyn can't amnesty Joe Johnson.jpake1;1219216 wrote:I like a lot of the moves teams have made. It looks like Miami is the leader for Allen, which is huge for them considering their two best 3pt specialists might retire. They still need a serviceable 4/5 that can play 15m when asked to. I love what Boston did; much better than giving up and going back to being a late lottery/low playoff seed team. Some nice additions in Bradley being a year older and better when he's finally 100%, Terry, and some young talented bodies down low to keep KG fresh for playoffs. I like what the Lakers did too; I just don't think Brown should be able to coach that much veteran talent. The Thunder will improve based on age. I even like what the Nets have done, and would love it if they get Miss Howard. I like the JJ signing. If they don't get Dwight now, they will next year. I imagine the Russian would amnesty JJ and sign Howard outright just to get his guy (I put nothing past that billionaire). All in all, I think the NBA could truly have a handful of superteams: Heat, Boston, maybe Nets, Thunder, Lakers, maybe Spurs.
killer_ewok;1219249 wrote:Jason Kidd to the Knicks.
wildcats20;1219349 wrote:Lin to Houston....4 years, $30+mil. according to Stein.
Edit...just an offer sheet.
Stein had a tweet that said the Knicks would match anything up to $1 billion.jordo212000;1219366 wrote:EDIT
Misread the tweet. Looks like Knicks will match
wildcats20;1219382 wrote:Stein had a tweet that said the Knicks would match anything up to $1 billion.
