PDA

View Full Version : Would you have traded K.Malone or Drob in 98 for Grant Hill?



JordansBulls
11-07-2012, 01:17 PM
Would you have traded K.Malone or David Robinson in 98 for Grant Hill if you were the Jazz or Spurs?

Spurs is more likely considering they had just gotten Duncan that year. But would you have made the deal, not knowing if Hill would get injured a few years later?

ManRam
11-07-2012, 01:27 PM
Would you have traded K.Malone or David Robinson in 98 for Grant Hill if you were the Jazz or Spurs?

Spurs is more likely considering they had just gotten Duncan that year. But would you have made the deal, not knowing if Hill would get injured a few years later?

This would be an easy "NO ****ING WAY" if Malone weren't 34-35 and Robinson wasn't 32. I love Grant Hill...but Stockton and Malone was too good of a combo, and Robinson was a better player than Hill, and played at a position that mattered more then.

But Hill was 25-26, and embarking upon a promising career.

That's tough. Robinson played 5 more year with San Antonio, and while Hill and Duncan would have been a great combo, they had something really good going there. I don't think they'd mess with something so good...but I doubt they'd get too much backlash for pulling it off.

Malone and the Jazz lost in the Finals in 1998...and that Stockton to Malone combo, even at their age, was too dominant. I don't think moving a big for a wing would have helped them much.


It's tough. Good question JB! I'm stunned!

JasonJohnHorn
11-07-2012, 01:31 PM
I don't think as fans of those teams that anybdoy would have wanted to see either of them traded, even for Grant Hill.

Firstly for the Spurs, having two HOF big men when most teams didn't even have one, it was important to winning. Though Hill and Duncan would have made an amazing pair.

And the Jazz, they didn't even have a center. Giving up a PF for a SF would have been out of the question. They would have gotten destroyed on the boards without Malone.

JordansBulls
11-07-2012, 02:02 PM
Yeah I think both were realistic but that the Drob was more realistic on the Spurs part considering Robinson had a season injury the season before. Malone was realistic based on his age in that he was 34 while Hill was only 25, but wasn't realistic in that the Jazz were already considered the favorite or at worst top 3 with Chicago and LA being the other two. So in that sense may not have made sense to trade Malone for Hill.
With that being said I think the Robinson for Hill deal made sense on both ends.

CavsYanksDuke
11-07-2012, 02:19 PM
I would have taken Grant Hill over anybody. Period. He was MJ with no gambling, no promiscuity, and was a great role model.

Stinkyoutsider
11-07-2012, 02:32 PM
Tough question...

If I was running the Jazz, I probably wouldn't have made the deal? I would have wanted to run with Malone and Stockton for a while longer. But with Malone being older, I would have thought about it for a while...

I know I wouldn't have made the deal if I was running the Spurs though. I would have been pretty confident what I could get out of Duncan (wouldn't have expected hall of fame numbers but would have expected Duncan to put up solid numbers). And having Robinson come back too would have given me something other teams didn't have: two 7-footers who could defend the paint and draw doubles and score on offense.

Raps08-09 Champ
11-07-2012, 02:33 PM
For the Spurs, yea.

I would have 2 players relatively young in Duncan and Hill playing together.

Heediot
11-07-2012, 02:36 PM
In 98 for sure in regards to the Mailman. Malone was 35 and was at the twilight of his prime. DRobinson coming off injury is more iffy and harder to predict. Screw it Robinson was 33 so yeah I'd trade him for Hill.

JordansBulls
11-07-2012, 02:55 PM
For the Spurs, yea.

I would have 2 players relatively young in Duncan and Hill playing together.

My line of thinking as well considering Drob's injury.

ManningToTyree
11-07-2012, 03:11 PM
Tough call because of the age factor but I would have kept the big men.

Hellcrooner
11-07-2012, 03:14 PM
Yes.

P Harvy
11-07-2012, 03:18 PM
Grant Hill, no. Grant Mountain, yes.

JasonJohnHorn
11-07-2012, 03:20 PM
I don't think the Pistons would have taken on either of those guys for Hill at that point anyways considering their age.

KnicksorBust
11-07-2012, 04:35 PM
I don't think the Pistons would have taken on either of those guys for Hill at that point anyways considering their age.

Yeah this was my first reaction as well. Grant was a monster at the start of career. No way Detroit is selling high on him for a past his prime star.

JordansBulls
11-07-2012, 05:27 PM
Yeah this was my first reaction as well. Grant was a monster at the start of career. No way Detroit is selling high on him for a past his prime star.

Yeah but they traded him just 2 years later.

iDefend10
11-07-2012, 05:35 PM
No way. I loved Grant Hill in Detroit, but I would of never given up Mailman or The Admiral for him.

KnicksorBust
11-07-2012, 05:46 PM
Yeah but they traded him just 2 years later.

There's a difference between trading a young all-nba superstar approaching his prime vs. trading him because he was leaving in FA.

JordansBulls
11-07-2012, 09:55 PM
There's a difference between trading a young all-nba superstar approaching his prime vs. trading him because he was leaving in FA.

Was he going to leave though?

IndiansFan337
11-07-2012, 10:22 PM
Probably not if you could predict his injury issues.

OaklandsFinest
11-07-2012, 10:46 PM
No way David Robinson is probably a top 25 player all time, while Grant Hill is a top 25 woulda shoulda coulda...

netsgiantsyanks
11-07-2012, 10:57 PM
it's crazy how good grant hill actually used to be pre-injury.

JordansBulls
11-07-2012, 11:03 PM
No way David Robinson is probably a top 25 player all time, while Grant Hill is a top 25 woulda shoulda coulda...

Yeah but we are not talking about DRob from 24-30 years old, we are talking 32 year old Robinson who just had a season injury.

CavsYanksDuke
11-08-2012, 12:43 AM
^ Don't try and help those that aren't willing to bother with reading.

Becks2307
11-08-2012, 01:52 AM
Grant hill by far...

KaganRS
11-08-2012, 02:16 AM
Was he going to leave though?

One of the first moves in Joe Dumars tenure as president of operations was that sign and trade.

Because they were good friends from their playing days Grant let him know he had no intention of returning in order for Dumars to get something back.

Funny thing is ... The Pistons allowed him to - combined with Grant Hill's stupidity and heart - come back in the best of 5 Atlanta series with a nasty ankle injury. Unfortunately, he re-injured the ankle late in the series. He did all he could for those teal era Pistons - great respect for him.

We ended up getting Ben Wallace - nobody expected him to become so dominant defensively under Rick Carlisle.

JordansBulls
11-08-2012, 10:08 AM
^ Don't try and help those that aren't willing to bother with reading.

That seems to be the case here most of the time.

Trueblue2
11-08-2012, 01:51 PM
Robinson? Yea. You can move Duncan to center and have Hill and Duncan for years to come because they're around the same age when Robinson was on his last contract. It would be tough trading Robinson and giving up that Twin towers thing they had going, but Hill's game was unreal before injury. Everyone who watched the NBA knew Hill was something special, he was supposed to be a player of Lebron and Kobe's caliber, having a wing/big combo like Hill and Duncan would be on par with if not better than Shaq and Kobe. In hind sight this trade would have (probably) kept the spurs from winning it all in 98-99 and crippled the team when Hill got hurt, but at the time it would have been a no brainer. Of course you trade your aging center for a once in a decade talent and extend your current roster's championship window.

Malone? No. The Jazz had no front court depth and Stockton and Malone were getting up there in years. At that point you pretty much have to ride Malone and Stockton til the wheels fall off, they've done so much together for the franchise throughout their careers that they deserved to put the same team back out there and try again.

Had they made the trade they would have had nobody in the front court, they would have basically conceded the season and said 'this move's for the future.' basically slamming shut Stockton's championship window. That team had just made it to the finals, they were in win now mode and they had a legitimate shot at making the finals again and winning it. Had they made that trade they wouldn't have been able to make up for the lack of talented big men (especially in that era) and still make a title push. You just don't trade away your teams championship hopes to go into a rebuilding year no matter how good the trade looks for the future, especially in a small market like utah.

futureman
11-08-2012, 02:05 PM
No way.

todu82
11-08-2012, 03:44 PM
Nope.

JordansBulls
11-08-2012, 10:41 PM
Robinson? Yea. You can move Duncan to center and have Hill and Duncan for years to come because they're around the same age when Robinson was on his last contract. It would be tough trading Robinson and giving up that Twin towers thing they had going, but Hill's game was unreal before injury. Everyone who watched the NBA knew Hill was something special, he was supposed to be a player of Lebron and Kobe's caliber, having a wing/big combo like Hill and Duncan would be on par with if not better than Shaq and Kobe. In hind sight this trade would have (probably) kept the spurs from winning it all in 98-99 and crippled the team when Hill got hurt, but at the time it would have been a no brainer. Of course you trade your aging center for a once in a decade talent and extend your current roster's championship window.

Malone? No. The Jazz had no front court depth and Stockton and Malone were getting up there in years. At that point you pretty much have to ride Malone and Stockton til the wheels fall off, they've done so much together for the franchise throughout their careers that they deserved to put the same team back out there and try again.

Had they made the trade they would have had nobody in the front court, they would have basically conceded the season and said 'this move's for the future.' basically slamming shut Stockton's championship window. That team had just made it to the finals, they were in win now mode and they had a legitimate shot at making the finals again and winning it. Had they made that trade they wouldn't have been able to make up for the lack of talented big men (especially in that era) and still make a title push. You just don't trade away your teams championship hopes to go into a rebuilding year no matter how good the trade looks for the future, especially in a small market like utah.
I honestly think the only reason why they wanted the Drob and Duncan duo was for Shaq.

JordansBulls
12-17-2012, 01:03 PM
I would have taken Grant Hill over anybody. Period. He was MJ with no gambling, no promiscuity, and was a great role model.

Grant Hill was a great player but I wouldn't say I would have taken him over anyone. Only reason this is a question here is that he was 25 at the time while Robinson was 32 and Malone 34.

sep11ie
12-17-2012, 01:18 PM
David Robinson.

Becks2307
12-17-2012, 01:27 PM
Grant Hill was the Lebron without the super athleticism but a bit more refined. He put up 20 10 and 7 his soph year, such a beast.

ILLUSIONIST^248
12-17-2012, 02:31 PM
I would have taken Grant Hill over anybody. Period. He was MJ with no gambling, no promiscuity, and was a great role model.

This. If I weren't for injuries hill would have been something special.

blacknell
12-17-2012, 02:54 PM
not malone because him and John were to good together

tapajafri
12-17-2012, 05:27 PM
Not Robinson, but possibly Malone. Hill was on his way to being a big time superstar. Damned injuries.

tapajafri
12-17-2012, 05:28 PM
not malone because him and John were to good together

That's true, this was 1998 and both Robinson and Malone were nearing the end of their careers (not at the end, but about 2-4 years away) and still title contenders. However it's hard to pass up a superstar like Hill for the next 10+ years.

BULLSFAN0810
12-18-2012, 01:33 AM
yep... Hill was argueably number 2 behind Jordan as best in game

Cal827
12-18-2012, 01:46 AM
Definitely for Robinson. If it did happen, it wouldn't have been surprising to see Duncan be developed at the C (as he can play it too).

Malone no b/c of Stockton

bootleg42
12-18-2012, 01:49 AM
Would you have traded K.Malone or David Robinson in 98 for Grant Hill if you were the Jazz or Spurs?

Spurs is more likely considering they had just gotten Duncan that year. But would you have made the deal, not knowing if Hill would get injured a few years later?

Considering if I had to be in 1998 at the time without knowing that Grant Hill would get hurt:

Jazz: NO. In 1998 they were making a finals run. They intended Stockton and Malone to make another run in 1999 once Jordan retired.

Spurs: After the 1997-1998 season ended, David Robinson was still 21 points and 10 rebounds a night. Grant Hill was 21 a night at the same time also, and he was a rising star. It would have been a tough call, but I would have kept Robinson because the idea of having two effective big men in the middle would have been too good to walk away from. Besides. David Robinson was the franchise player. Throughout the 90's, he was "the guy" for that team, and knowing this I wouldn't have done it.

JordansBulls
12-18-2012, 10:09 AM
yep... Hill was argueably number 2 behind Jordan as best in game

Hill was never rated that high. Not with MJ, Malone, Shaq, Hakeem in the league those years.