IT4 For Hood & Hill: who says no?

[perks-a-beast]

Utah wants to retain Gordon heyward in free agency. Acquiring an all star to set them up for a playoff run is the step in the right direction if they want to do that.  Boston get some much-needed shooting  in return for a guy they will probably be hesitant to sign to a max contract anyways. We also take George Hill off their hands Who may be too expensive for them in the off-season if they want to sign Gordon Hayward to a max contract. Who says no to this deal

[BitterJim]

Boston says no because IT>>Hill or Hood and we need quality, not quantity

[TrueFan]

Hood is a nice player but I like Brown a lot better so I'm not seeing a place for him on the team.

[perks-a-beast]

Jaylen could slide to the 2 spot while Hood can play SF.

This trade is all about getting value for IT rather than signing him to a huge deal as he nears 30years old and relies solely and his speed and athletisism to be efficient.

[mmmmm]

Danny Ainge says, "No."

Danny then stays on the phone to offer them the future, protected Clippers 1st and salary matching for taking Hayward off their hands early (since he tells them he intends to otherwise take him in free agency).

[indeedproceed]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

[Moranis]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

Yep.  Taking contracts out of it, I don't even know if Utah would trade Hill straight up for Thomas given he is a vastly superior defensive player and a more efficient offensive player (though with lesser volume). 

[Rondo9]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

Yep.  Taking contracts out of it, I don't even know if Utah would trade Hill straight up for Thomas given he is a vastly superior defensive player and a more efficient offensive player (though with lesser volume).

I think they would trade Hill for Thomas.

[mmmmm]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

Yep.  Taking contracts out of it, I don't even know if Utah would trade Hill straight up for Thomas given he is a vastly superior defensive player and a more efficient offensive player (though with lesser volume).

George Hill has played only 11 games this year and has gotten off to a red hot start shooting WAY WAY above his career averages:

He's currently sporting a 45.6% 3PT% ... compared to a career 37.9%.

He's currently got a 53.4% overall FG% ... compared to a career 45.2%

This is, as a consequence, inflating his scoring efficiency to an absurd .667 TS ... compared to a career rate of .565.

How sustainable do you really believe that to be?

Isaiah is posting the same rock-solid ~.574 TS scoring efficiency that he has delivered year-in-and-year-out (even while sustaining much higher USG).   He also blows Hill away when it comes to delivering assists.

If you truly believe Hill can maintain his current hot shooting going forward, then sure.  He's more efficient.

Me?  I'd put my money on Isaiah continuing over the long haul to be the far, far superior player of the two.

AND ... of course, contracts matter and that advantage goes to IT.

[celticsclay]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

Yep.  Taking contracts out of it, I don't even know if Utah would trade Hill straight up for Thomas given he is a vastly superior defensive player and a more efficient offensive player (though with lesser volume).

I think they would trade Hill for Thomas.

Anyone not intentionally being a contrarian would also do this.

I mean sometimes this stuff is just stupid. George Hill is 3 years older than Thomas. Aside from a silly 10 games this year where he has shot at an unsustainable rate Hill has never averaged more than 16 points or 5 assists. Yet because he is somewhat better at defense (hardly all league) they wouldn't trade him for an all star that has put up 22 and 6 last year and 26 and 6 (in twice the sample size of Hill) this year, I mean come on. We know basketball better than this.

[celticsclay]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

Yep.  Taking contracts out of it, I don't even know if Utah would trade Hill straight up for Thomas given he is a vastly superior defensive player and a more efficient offensive player (though with lesser volume).

George Hill has played only 11 games this year and has gotten off to a red hot start shooting WAY WAY above his career averages:

He's currently sporting a 45.6% 3PT% ... compared to a career 37.9%.

He's currently got a 53.4% overall FG% ... compared to a career 45.2%

This is, as a consequence, inflating his scoring efficiency to an absurd .667 TS ... compared to a career rate of .565.

How sustainable do you really believe that to be?

Isaiah is posting the same rock-solid ~.574 TS scoring efficiency that he has delivered year-in-and-year-out (even while sustaining much higher USG).   He also blows Hill away when it comes to delivering assists.

If you truly believe Hill can maintain his current hot shooting going forward, then sure.  He's more efficient.

Me?  I'd put my money on Isaiah continuing over the long haul to be the far, far superior player of the two.

AND ... of course, contracts matter and that advantage goes to IT.

Plus 3 years older. It truly was a dumb comment.

[Moranis]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

Yep.  Taking contracts out of it, I don't even know if Utah would trade Hill straight up for Thomas given he is a vastly superior defensive player and a more efficient offensive player (though with lesser volume).

George Hill has played only 11 games this year and has gotten off to a red hot start shooting WAY WAY above his career averages:

He's currently sporting a 45.6% 3PT% ... compared to a career 37.9%.

He's currently got a 53.4% overall FG% ... compared to a career 45.2%

This is, as a consequence, inflating his scoring efficiency to an absurd .667 TS ... compared to a career rate of .565.

How sustainable do you really believe that to be?

Isaiah is posting the same rock-solid ~.574 TS scoring efficiency that he has delivered year-in-and-year-out (even while sustaining much higher USG).   He also blows Hill away when it comes to delivering assists.

If you truly believe Hill can maintain his current hot shooting going forward, then sure.  He's more efficient.

Me?  I'd put my money on Isaiah continuing over the long haul to be the far, far superior player of the two.

AND ... of course, contracts matter and that advantage goes to IT.

Is Hill a vastly superior defender?

Hill has a higher career 2PT and 3PT percentage and a result has a higher eFG% at 52% vs. 50.4% for Thomas.  Thomas gets to the line a lot more and as such has a higher career TS% at 57.2% v. 56.5%.  Thomas has hand on the ball a lot more, especially throughout their careers and thus has a much higher Usage Rate, though does end up with more shots, more assists, more turnovers, etc.  Thomas has a higher AST% as well but also a higher TOV% and lower RB%, STL%, and BLK%.  Prior to this season each had a career best PER of 21.5 (Hill currently has a slightly higher PER than Thomas this year, which is both their career best season), though Thomas has consistently had a larger offensive role than Hill and thus has a better career PER.  Thomas has a career BPM of 1.8 and VORP of 11 (1.833 per year).  Hill exceeds both with a career BPM of 2 and VORP of 16.6 (1.844 per year).

When you actually account for defense and take a closer look at the offensive numbers, it paints a slightly different picture.  And here is the thing, Utah doesn't need a ball dominant offensive oriented PG like Thomas.  They need a defensive stalwart that is an efficient shooter.  That is Hill, not Thomas.  And I clearly said taking contracts out of it because Thomas has a far superior contract making him more valuable.

[TrueFan]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

Yep.  Taking contracts out of it, I don't even know if Utah would trade Hill straight up for Thomas given he is a vastly superior defensive player and a more efficient offensive player (though with lesser volume).

I think they would trade Hill for Thomas.

You are absolutely correct. I think the better question which was discussed in a different thread is would Utah trade Favors for IT. The short answer was maybe not because Hill has been pretty good at the point.

[celticsclay]

Utah says no. Boston probably says yes.

Yep.  Taking contracts out of it, I don't even know if Utah would trade Hill straight up for Thomas given he is a vastly superior defensive player and a more efficient offensive player (though with lesser volume).

George Hill has played only 11 games this year and has gotten off to a red hot start shooting WAY WAY above his career averages:

He's currently sporting a 45.6% 3PT% ... compared to a career 37.9%.

He's currently got a 53.4% overall FG% ... compared to a career 45.2%

This is, as a consequence, inflating his scoring efficiency to an absurd .667 TS ... compared to a career rate of .565.

How sustainable do you really believe that to be?

Isaiah is posting the same rock-solid ~.574 TS scoring efficiency that he has delivered year-in-and-year-out (even while sustaining much higher USG).   He also blows Hill away when it comes to delivering assists.

If you truly believe Hill can maintain his current hot shooting going forward, then sure.  He's more efficient.

Me?  I'd put my money on Isaiah continuing over the long haul to be the far, far superior player of the two.

AND ... of course, contracts matter and that advantage goes to IT.

Is Hill a vastly superior defender?

Hill has a higher career 2PT and 3PT percentage and a result has a higher eFG% at 52% vs. 50.4% for Thomas.  Thomas gets to the line a lot more and as such has a higher career TS% at 57.2% v. 56.5%.  Thomas has hand on the ball a lot more, especially throughout their careers and thus has a much higher Usage Rate, though does end up with more shots, more assists, more turnovers, etc.  Thomas has a higher AST% as well but also a higher TOV% and lower RB%, STL%, and BLK%.  Prior to this season each had a career best PER of 21.5 (Hill currently has a slightly higher PER than Thomas this year, which is both their career best season), though Thomas has consistently had a larger offensive role than Hill and thus has a better career PER.  Thomas has a career BPM of 1.8 and VORP of 11 (1.833 per year).  Hill exceeds both with a career BPM of 2 and VORP of 16.6 (1.844 per year).

When you actually account for defense and take a closer look at the offensive numbers, it paints a slightly different picture.  And here is the thing, Utah doesn't need a ball dominant offensive oriented PG like Thomas.  They need a defensive stalwart that is an efficient shooter.  That is Hill, not Thomas.  And I clearly said taking contracts out of it because Thomas has a far superior contract making him more valuable.

Sorry man. It is a non-starter. Talent is what it comes down to and IT is a lot more talented and 3 years younger. If they were similar players maybe you talk about fit, but they are not. Also considering they may lose their best scorer in Hayward at seasons end, turning down a 27 year old all star that is a ridiculously good offensive player and will probably be an all star again this year for a 30 year league average point guard would be insane. There is being contrarian and there is being ridiculous. Acting like the Jazz wouldn't drive hill to the airport if he was offered for IT is clearly the latter. Just stop.

Edit: This is up there with your Henry Sims and Crowder are interchangable post from a few years back in terms of ridiculousness

[PhoSita]

With Hood included, I think the Celts would have to take the deal.  I'd hate to see IT go, though, despite the fact that I like George Hill.

A straight-up IT for Hill trade, however?  No way.  I don't see why the Celts would do that.