Revisiting the Kawhi Leonard-George Hill trade

[CelticConcourse]

So, there was this nice read on Grantland on the Leonard-Hill trade from a few years ago:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9316310/analyzing-kawhi-leonard-george-hill-trade-2013-conference-finals

Who do you guys think "won" that deal? It might seem like a win-win, but I think San Antonio got a little more out of it. I think there are a few people on this forum who aren't very high on Hill, and a Leonard-George combo would've been deadly. It's also interesting to think about, what if SAS had traded Parker?

[Who]

Kawhi Leonard > George Hill

[CelticsFan9]

I remember thinking, "Well that's interesting" when the trade first went down.  Now it's considered one of the better trades in recent memory.

SAS won for a number a reasons.  First, Leonard is the better player.  Second, Hill, in my opinion, is a little overpaid, while Leonard is still on his rookie deal for another three or four years.  Third, Leonard is a better fit.  Hill is solid, and I like him a lot, but to beat MIA, you need a PG that can take over and penetrate.  Hill isn't that kind of PG.  Leonard give SAS that wing defender that can cover Durant, that can cover LeBron, that can cover Melo.  You need that kind of guy to win.

[Scribbles]

It was a win-win.  Pacers needed to upgrade their guard spot and the Spurs needed a 3.  Sure Leonard looks like he's going to be a star, but it really was a deal that worked out both ways.  I mean was Leonard really going to play over Granger(when healthy) or George?  No, imo.

[lightspeed5]

Larry legend signed hill because he's from Indiana.

[Boris Badenov]

So, there was this nice read on Grantland on the Leonard-Hill trade from a few years ago:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9316310/analyzing-kawhi-leonard-george-hill-trade-2013-conference-finals

Who do you guys think "won" that deal? It might seem like a win-win, but I think San Antonio got a little more out of it. I think there are a few people on this forum who aren't very high on Hill, and a Leonard-George combo would've been deadly. It's also interesting to think about, what if SAS had traded Parker?

I read that too. I think it overstates the case for Indy.

To make the case that Indy almost had to give up Leonard, they imply something like "if they kept Leonard they'd have been stuck with Granger/George/Leonard, and more importantly Darren Collison at PG."

That is far too static an analysis. For one, Granger got hurt, so that redundancy at SF is a non-issue.

But second, they could've done other things to shore up the PG position. They could've kept Barbosa, at the very least. And they had other assets (Collison himself, Hansbrough, picks, MLE? etc.) they could have used to acquire a PG.

And of course, with Granger healthy they still could have moved him, for a very good PG. Even hurt they could probably get a decent PG for him (I suggested Bledsoe the other day).

To me if you consider all the ways Indy could have adjusted, they should have kept Leonard.

[Atzar]

George Hill is a borderline starter who seems to have plateaued.

Kawhi Leonard is an above average starter with some potential to be even better. 

I don't think there's any question who won this deal. 

[Fafnir]

George Hill is a borderline starter who seems to have plateaued.

Kawhi Leonard is an above average starter with some potential to be even better. 

I don't think there's any question who won this deal.

Yup.

The key with this sort of deal you have to recognize that both sides assumed a different level of uncertainty. The Spurs gambled on the rookie instead of a proven starting level guy. They won, big time.

[Donoghus]

Spurs got the better end.

Do you really think anyone in San Antonio right now is kicking themselves for not having George Hill?

[Fafnir]

Spurs got the better end.

Do you really think anyone in San Antonio right now is kicking themselves for not having George Hill?

Not once Danny Green worked out so well certainly.

[CelticConcourse]

Spurs got the better end.

Do you really think anyone in San Antonio right now is kicking themselves for not having George Hill?

On the contrary.

Do you really think anyone in Indiana right now is kicking themselves for not having Kawhi Leonard?

They've got an All-Star SF!

[action781]

So, there was this nice read on Grantland on the Leonard-Hill trade from a few years ago:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9316310/analyzing-kawhi-leonard-george-hill-trade-2013-conference-finals

Who do you guys think "won" that deal? It might seem like a win-win, but I think San Antonio got a little more out of it. I think there are a few people on this forum who aren't very high on Hill, and a Leonard-George combo would've been deadly.

I don't know if I'd call Leonard-George a "deadly" combo...

Kawhi is a good player, but he's as good as he is because of what a great fit he is in the SA system.  Considering him purely as a player, Kawhi Leonard is at best, marginally better than Aaron Afflalo.

The trade was a win for SA, but less because of the difference in talent and more because of need and fit.  They didn't need George Hill with Parker at point guard (and Manu playing a lot of SG minutes) and because Danny Green has panned out to also be a great fit in the SA system.  Kawhi does fit a need at SF.

[scaryjerry]

Win win...both players are on the same level in my mind, Leonard is being overrated because he's been the perfect fit for San Antonio ....he's a role playing 4th or 5th option...George hill is a starting pg