Seems like Roy Hibbert caught whatever Tyson Chandler has because he sucks now. Considering the Pacers financial situation, I could see him being dumped this offseason in an attempt to avoid the luxury tax. Could we get him for the ghost of Tyson Chandler past? And could we expand the deal to include the grossly overpaid George Hill, who would be pretty good in the triangle.
I wouldn't want Hibbert let Indy suffer trying to trade him.
yellowboy90 wrote:I wouldn't want Hibbert let Indy suffer trying to trade him.
I'm not going to lie, he does intrigue me. I never thought he was anything special but that's how I feel about Tyson. At least Hibbert is young and not completely useless on the offensive end. I think I'd roll the dice if we keep Melo because I doubt anything will come of this 2015 plan.
mreinman wrote:no thanks.
I need some sense talked into me. I think I'd gamble on the dude, especially with Kerr's intent to "play inside-out".
NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:no thanks.
I need some sense talked into me. I think I'd gamble on the dude, especially with Kerr's intent to "play inside-out".
The only guys I want from that team is David West and a level headed Stephenson.
Hibbert is a low efficient putz.
You should really start looking at efficiency stats to gauge the correct players to covet.
No offense but the players that you keep mentioning are players that I want no part of.
mreinman wrote:NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:no thanks.
I need some sense talked into me. I think I'd gamble on the dude, especially with Kerr's intent to "play inside-out".
The only guys I want from that team is David West and a level headed Stephenson.
Hibbert is a low efficient putz.
You should really start looking at efficiency stats to gauge the correct players to covet.
No offense but the players that you keep mentioning are players that I want no part of.
No offense taken. You're right about Hibbert.
Hibbert is just like Chandler. Looks great, like and absolute world beater against some and totally invisible against others. I dont really get it. Hibbert can certainly protect the rim. Paid too much.. rather have a more versatile player
fishmike wrote:Hibbert is just like Chandler. Looks great, like and absolute world beater against some and totally invisible against others. I dont really get it. Hibbert can certainly protect the rim. Paid too much.. rather have a more versatile player
Hibbert is also like Chandler in that he doesn't have a real PG capable of delivering him the rock effectively in scoring position. Hibbert appears to be overpaid at this point, but I still think he's a legitimate starting center. Not top 5, but still top 10.
I think Hill is an effective third guard an he would be upgrade over Felton. I think he would fit in well with the Triangle in a limited playmaking role.
fishmike wrote:Hibbert is just like Chandler. Looks great, like and absolute world beater against some and totally invisible against others. I dont really get it. Hibbert can certainly protect the rim. Paid too much.. rather have a more versatile player
Hibbert is really nothing like Chandler. Chandler is super efficient and Hibbert is super NOT efficient.
mreinman wrote:NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:no thanks.
I need some sense talked into me. I think I'd gamble on the dude, especially with Kerr's intent to "play inside-out".
The only guys I want from that team is David West and a level headed Stephenson.
Who is this man?
And would they take our garbage in return? Say Bargs and Kmart?
mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:Hibbert is just like Chandler. Looks great, like and absolute world beater against some and totally invisible against others. I dont really get it. Hibbert can certainly protect the rim. Paid too much.. rather have a more versatile player
Hibbert is really nothing like Chandler. Chandler is super efficient and Hibbert is super NOT efficient.
Hibbert is a solid mid range jumpshooter, but is worse finisher than Nate Robinson in the paint. Chandler is an effective finisher at the rim, but can't do much else. They're both limited on offense. The big concern I have with Hibbert is his rebounding. Rim protection is good, but you also have to be able to retrieve those misses.
BigDaddyG wrote:mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:Hibbert is just like Chandler. Looks great, like and absolute world beater against some and totally invisible against others. I dont really get it. Hibbert can certainly protect the rim. Paid too much.. rather have a more versatile player
Hibbert is really nothing like Chandler. Chandler is super efficient and Hibbert is super NOT efficient.
Hibbert is a solid mid range jumpshooter, but is worse finisher than Nate Robinson in the paint. Chandler is an effective finisher at the rim, but can't do much else. They're both limited on offense. The big concern I have with Hibbert is his rebounding. Rim protection is good, but you also have to be able to retrieve those misses.
Hibbert shoots 44 percent while chandler usually shoots 60-67 percent.
mreinman wrote:BigDaddyG wrote:mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:Hibbert is just like Chandler. Looks great, like and absolute world beater against some and totally invisible against others. I dont really get it. Hibbert can certainly protect the rim. Paid too much.. rather have a more versatile player
Hibbert is really nothing like Chandler. Chandler is super efficient and Hibbert is super NOT efficient.
Hibbert is a solid mid range jumpshooter, but is worse finisher than Nate Robinson in the paint. Chandler is an effective finisher at the rim, but can't do much else. They're both limited on offense. The big concern I have with Hibbert is his rebounding. Rim protection is good, but you also have to be able to retrieve those misses.
Hibbert shoots 44 percent while chandler usually shoots 60-67 percent.
Yeah, I wasn't kidding when I said Nate Robinson is a better finisher inside the paint than Hibbert. Hibbert is just more comfortable shooting short and midrange jumpers. In the right offense that could be a plus. The rebounding effort has to be more consistent IMHO opinion. Tyson gets killed, but the dude still rebounds up there with the best bugs in the league.
Who really thinks that Walsh will be trading for any Knicks player?
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Who really thinks that Walsh will be trading for any Knicks player?
[/quoteThis is a great point. Only person he'd trade for woulda been Landry Fields. Walsh loved himself some Landry Fields.
Gotta love how quickly things change. One minute Hibbert is the run-a-way DPOY and a guy that every championship team needs and Indiana is the model franchise. Next minute no one wants Hibbert and Indiana is a joke.
Did the Pacers become the #1 seed without Hibbert? Hibbert is an efficient and effective down low center. Rare, they don't grow on trees. I think pacers signing Bynum was toxic to Hibbert in practices. Just saying.
GoNyGoNyGo wrote:Who really thinks that Walsh will be trading for any Knicks player?
The dude signed Chris Copeland just last offseason. Clearly, he is not averse to Knick players. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here but I suspect that it'll be moot.
"HIllBert"
Would I take them? Do they fit the system? Skill set, contract and buy in are the three criterias you look at.
Do they fit the culture either by their IQ? On court Skills? Contract specifications? Willing to fit in?
There are guys vying for a new contract and if the system doe snot suite thier skill set the stats by which is often a strong negotiation tool is either inflated or deflated. LIkewise a guy with his last great contract and wants to win might be a more suitable fit. Its a businsess.
Buying low is a nice thing but it has to fit.
The culture determines who we want.
KNICKSdom wrote:Did the Pacers become the #1 seed without Hibbert? Hibbert is an efficient and effective down low center. Rare, they don't grow on trees. I think pacers signing Bynum was toxic to Hibbert in practices. Just saying.
That could not be further from the truth
