Grant Hill to LA-LA land?

[Lurker]

I have read a couple articles that list the Lakers as looking at Hill this summer.  Hopefully for less than the full MLE.  The idea being that Hill is an upgrade to Walton and another creator on offense to take some of the load off of Kobe.

However with Hill's inability to stay off the IR for extended periods of time I have to wonder if this really is an improvement.  And while Hill is a better ball handler IMO Walton is the better defender.  Also this wouldn't address the Lakers 2 biggest needs: PG & C.  Kobe wants to win NOW but adding Hill won't push the Lakers any higher in the West.  Kobe needs an inside scoring presence not another perimeter player.

What do the rest of you think?

[WayOutWest]

If that happened I think it would be a KG move.  Giving him just enough on paper to keep him on the team.  Hill does not make the Lakers any more legit, not at full strength for the whole season and especially if Hill has his typical IR season.

Can't see much on the horizon for the Lakers other than them playing healthy for the entire year and making it to the second round.

[Laker Fan]

No way I would give up Luke for Grant! A 35 year old injury prone player who IMO has a couple of years MAX left for a 25 year old, somewhat injury prone kid with great hands, great passing, aggressive defense, good rebounder, plays with fire and motivation, has TONS of basketball smarts and TONS of upside? Big mistake boys and girls, big mistake.

They are the same size, and Hill at 4 years in was very similar in terms of raw numbers to Walton, except he scored a much higher PPG, but then he was a main scoring option for Detroit at that time and Luke is not, I think he is a better passer and Hills numbers have steadily declined partly due to limited minutes and if you look at career stats (a little skewed given Grant has been in the league much longer), Walton is the far better all around player.

This isn't an upgrade anywhere but scoring, and I don't think LA needs scoring as much as they need defensive help and better rebounding on both ends of the court.

[WayOutWest]

I don't think Walton has anywhere near the capabilities that Grant HAD but I agree at this point I'd take Luke over Grant.  I wouldn't mind adding Grant but I hope the Lakers don't look at Grant as the answer to ANY of the Lakers problems.  He'd be a great addition to the bench and that's about it.

[westkoast]

Wouldn't do the deal personally for the following reasons...

1) Luke Walton is a very good fit in the triangle offense.  Hill would still take a while to adjust to running an offense that way.  If the Lakers did that move to me it says "We are thinking in the short term not the long term" and having to spend half the year getting a main piece adjusted to a new offense doesn't sound like a good idea.

2) Youth.  Why trade to a more talented offensive player just to do it if one is younger then the other?  Luke Walton is still learning and improving his game.  Next year I expect him to be even better then the previous year.  He proved to us Laker fans last season that he really worked on his shot (led the league in 3 pt shooting until he got hurt) and post up game in the off-season.  Luke will never be the offensive weapon Hill is but sometimes it's better to have a player who has to depend on his smarts rather then his athletic ability.

3)Hill is even more injury prone then Luke Walton and he has many many more miles.

Like LF said offense is not really the problem and that position is certainly not a trouble spot for the Lakers.  Both Luke Walton and Mo Evans are quality role players.  The real issue is on the defensive end and at the 1 & 5.  Not at the 3. 

[Laker Fan]

The key word you used WOW was "had". You offer Grant Hill to LA as he was before he went to Orlando and I'm saying who do we rob to come up with the cash for him, he hasn't had a real healthy year since and his numbers have declined steadily. Hill isn't as basketball smart as Walton and that all by itself makes him more valuable at this point

[Lurker]

Just to be clear...any "deal" wouldn't involve trading Walton.  Just signing Hill for all or part of the MLE.

Other thoughts...

1) Hill being able to play PG for stretches would give PJ his big guard combo of Hill/Kobe.  And having Hill/Kobe/Walton all on the floor would be a very good passing combination.  Defensively that threesome would be hard pressed to guard some of the quicker PGs...especially with no big guarding the rim.

2) Hill played 67 games in 04/05, 21 in 05/06 and 65 this last year.  In the 04/05 season he shot over 50% from the floor and averaged 4+ reb and 3+ assts.  His assts and boards were down slightly this year but his FG% was still over 50%.  BTW Hill has no range...career 25% from the arc.

3) Adding Hill for the MLE puts a lot of pressure on Brown, Bynum & Mihm to be at least average defenders/rebounders for 82 games...and for one to have a career year.  One would think that there are some solid big men that would sign with LA for the MLE.

[westkoast]

Just to be clear...any "deal" wouldn't involve trading Walton.  Just signing Hill for all or part of the MLE.

Other thoughts...

1) Hill being able to play PG for stretches would give PJ his big guard combo of Hill/Kobe.  And having Hill/Kobe/Walton all on the floor would be a very good passing combination.  Defensively that threesome would be hard pressed to guard some of the quicker PGs...especially with no big guarding the rim.

2) Hill played 67 games in 04/05, 21 in 05/06 and 65 this last year.  In the 04/05 season he shot over 50% from the floor and averaged 4+ reb and 3+ assts.  His assts and boards were down slightly this year but his FG% was still over 50%.  BTW Hill has no range...career 25% from the arc.

3) Adding Hill for the MLE puts a lot of pressure on Brown, Bynum & Mihm to be at least average defenders/rebounders for 82 games...and for one to have a career year.  One would think that there are some solid big men that would sign with LA for the MLE.

For a MLE could be a decent pick up but I wonder what they do with guys like Mo Evans and Brian Cook.  Phil Jackson always wanted Luke Walton to be the 6th man and lead that second unit.  He felt that his knowledge of the triangle and passing abilities would be able to fuel the Lakers second unit.  It wasn't until the injury to Mihm that forced PJ to move Kwame to the 5 and Odom to the 4.

Hill could play the PG position but if you think the perimeter defense of the Lakers last year was an issue then it would be exploited even more this year.  Parker was not a slow guard.  He just gambled for steals way too much.  If Hill played a decent amount of minutes at PG I'd have to drink heavily every time Tony Parker, Steve Nash, Chris Paul, Baron Davis, or Deron Williams came to town.

Mihm, Brown, and Bynum should have no problem being decent defenders.  Whoever is playing the best defense gets the most time and that should be enough motivation to give 100% every second they are on the floor.  I doubt you see much of a bootleg twin towers setup with 2 7 footers on the floor at once.

[Lurker]

I doubt you see much of a bootleg twin towers setup with 2 7 footers on the floor at once.

Depending on the matchup I could see this occasionally (with Mihm at PF) to create a mismatch at SF with Odom.

However I believe the Lakers would be better off looking for a defensive minded PG with their MLE.

[Reality]

Could the Lakers also get Christian Laettner?