Donny Marshall says that The C's are in 3rd place for Grant Hill

[Brickowski]

Actually I think Davis is important for two reasons: insurance if Perk hurts his shoulder again and caddying for Garnett, to keep KG's minutes down. Also BBD has a better floor game than most guys his size.  Let's not forget what he did in the playoffs.

As for Hill, I have no real objection to bringing him on board, but no real desire to have him, either.  He has lost a step.  I'd much rather invest in a younger swing player who defends and who will be here longer than a year, someone like Ronnie Brewer or Julian Wright.  If you think about it, at this point in his career, Hill isn't that much of an upgrade over Scalabrine, all things considered.

[DJ Bento Box]

There's been a lot of cheap shots taken at Grant Hill by a lot of posters on the forum and I've yet to figure out why. It's starting to sound more and more like a lot of whining by fans when they don't feel that players aren't falling all over themselves to join the Celtics so they can "get that ring".

Besides the Celtics needing a big, there's very little difference in stats between Sheed and Grant yet fans are already seeing Sheed as some sort of a "savior" and Hill as some sort of an aged stopgap who "might" help out.

The average numbers for the last 2 seasons:

Sheed     12.5 pts.     7 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .432 fg%

Hill      12.5 pts.     5 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .510 fg%

When it comes to the questions of Hill's injury history and age, he's 2 years older yet has played 9 more games in the last 2 seasons (152 - 143) than Sheed. Knowing he pretty much missed most of 3-4 seasons during his career he's not an "old" 36 and has shown his durability as such.



 

[GLS]

There's been a lot of cheap shots taken at Grant Hill by a lot of posters on the forum and I've yet to figure out why. It's starting to sound more and more like a lot of whining by fans when they don't feel that players aren't falling all over themselves to join the Celtics so they can "get that ring".

Besides the Celtics needing a big, there's very little difference in stats between Sheed and Grant yet fans are already seeing Sheed as some sort of a "savior" and Hill as some sort of an aged stopgap who "might" help out.

The average numbers for the last 2 seasons:

Sheed     12.5 pts.     7 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .432 fg%

Hill      12.5 pts.     5 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .510 fg%

When it comes to the questions of Hill's injury history and age, he's 2 years older yet has played 9 more games in the last 2 seasons (152 - 143) than Sheed. Knowing he pretty much missed most of 3-4 seasons during his career he's not an "old" 36 and has shown his durability as such.

TP for a reality (stat) check

[Marqui]

There's been a lot of cheap shots taken at Grant Hill by a lot of posters on the forum and I've yet to figure out why. It's starting to sound more and more like a lot of whining by fans when they don't feel that players aren't falling all over themselves to join the Celtics so they can "get that ring".

Besides the Celtics needing a big, there's very little difference in stats between Sheed and Grant yet fans are already seeing Sheed as some sort of a "savior" and Hill as some sort of an aged stopgap who "might" help out.

The average numbers for the last 2 seasons:

Sheed     12.5 pts.     7 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .432 fg%

Hill      12.5 pts.     5 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .510 fg%

When it comes to the questions of Hill's injury history and age, he's 2 years older yet has played 9 more games in the last 2 seasons (152 - 143) than Sheed. Knowing he pretty much missed most of 3-4 seasons during his career he's not an "old" 36 and has shown his durability as such.



 

Nice too see a smart person around here.

[jv2764]

There's been a lot of cheap shots taken at Grant Hill by a lot of posters on the forum and I've yet to figure out why. It's starting to sound more and more like a lot of whining by fans when they don't feel that players aren't falling all over themselves to join the Celtics so they can "get that ring".

Besides the Celtics needing a big, there's very little difference in stats between Sheed and Grant yet fans are already seeing Sheed as some sort of a "savior" and Hill as some sort of an aged stopgap who "might" help out.

The average numbers for the last 2 seasons:

Sheed     12.5 pts.     7 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .432 fg%

Hill      12.5 pts.     5 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .510 fg%

When it comes to the questions of Hill's injury history and age, he's 2 years older yet has played 9 more games in the last 2 seasons (152 - 143) than Sheed. Knowing he pretty much missed most of 3-4 seasons during his career he's not an "old" 36 and has shown his durability as such.



 

Sometimes you just cant go by the numbers.  Wallace is much more important "get" than Hill.  Wallace has length and can defense and rebound.  I think if Sheed had played in a system like PHX he would have averaged more than 12.5 points.  Was it coincidental that Hill played 82 games in his walk year?  If you are worried about Ray's ankles then you have to be drop dead petrified of Hill's ankles.  Buyer beware is all I am saying.

[Neurotic Guy]

There's been a lot of cheap shots taken at Grant Hill by a lot of posters on the forum and I've yet to figure out why. It's starting to sound more and more like a lot of whining by fans when they don't feel that players aren't falling all over themselves to join the Celtics so they can "get that ring".

Besides the Celtics needing a big, there's very little difference in stats between Sheed and Grant yet fans are already seeing Sheed as some sort of a "savior" and Hill as some sort of an aged stopgap who "might" help out.

The average numbers for the last 2 seasons:

Sheed     12.5 pts.     7 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .432 fg%

Hill      12.5 pts.     5 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .510 fg%

When it comes to the questions of Hill's injury history and age, he's 2 years older yet has played 9 more games in the last 2 seasons (152 - 143) than Sheed. Knowing he pretty much missed most of 3-4 seasons during his career he's not an "old" 36 and has shown his durability as such.



 

Nice too see a smart person around here.

It would be incorect to suggest that Hill is anywhere near the acquisition that Rasheed is.   Wallace is old, too -- there is risk there as well, however, Wallace is long, can play the 4 and 5, can defend, can hit the 3/ spread the floor and can mix it up inside -- if motivated to do so (all clear needs for this team).  I doubt many of us who have questioned the importance of signing Hill were unaware that he played a full season and contributed well last season -- that's why most posters have expressed a hope to get him (I hopoe they get him).  I can tell you that all I was responding to was the comment that competing for the championship was doubtful without Baby/Hill.  I just think that is incorrect as I believe the 7-8 spots on this roster can be filled by others -- maybe not quite as well in some cases, but losing out on Hill/Davis in itself is unlikely to be the critical reason for not competing.

[DJ Bento Box]

I completely understand that Sheed is much more of an important "get" than Grant. He fills one of the main needs for the C's (size and defense). But casually throwing out that Grant played 82 games in a walk year discounts what he really did for a team in total turmoil. I think that the idea of being "petrified" of any sort of injury issue for Hill is a bit of a cop out as well since it was just last season at 36 he was able to play a full 82 game season and it was Rasheed who was only able to play 66 games due to various injuries at the age of 34.

All I'm saying is discounting and downgrading a player like Hill is cheap and doesn't say much for the person doing it. He's a vet who was a great player in his youth and now at 36 is a player who shoots at a solid percentage, brings a veteran presence and isn't going to "hurt" you like a younger, less experienced player is more apt to.    

[Brickowski]

Hill is perfectly fine as a decent backup and "veteran presence."  But he isn't going to bring alot of defensive intensity.  That's what you need from your third wing player, and it is what makes the Celtics such a good team.

[jv2764]

I completely understand that Sheed is much more of an important "get" than Grant. He fills one of the main needs for the C's (size and defense). But casually throwing out that Grant played 82 games in a walk year discounts what he really did for a team in total turmoil. I think that the idea of being "petrified" of any sort of injury issue for Hill is a bit of a cop out as well since it was just last season at 36 he was able to play a full 82 game season and it was Rasheed who was only able to play 66 games due to various injuries at the age of 34.

All I'm saying is discounting and downgrading a player like Hill is cheap and doesn't say much for the person doing it. He's a vet who was a great player in his youth and now at 36 is a player who shoots at a solid percentage, brings a veteran presence and isn't going to "hurt" you like a younger, less experienced player is more apt to.    

No worries man I just think there better alternatives than Grant Hill.  Like Brick says you need a defensive presence/intensity fron PP's back up.  My ideal guy would be Battier.  He be perfect but unfortunately I don't see that having a chance to happen.

[Mike-Dub]

There's been a lot of cheap shots taken at Grant Hill by a lot of posters on the forum and I've yet to figure out why. It's starting to sound more and more like a lot of whining by fans when they don't feel that players aren't falling all over themselves to join the Celtics so they can "get that ring".

Besides the Celtics needing a big, there's very little difference in stats between Sheed and Grant yet fans are already seeing Sheed as some sort of a "savior" and Hill as some sort of an aged stopgap who "might" help out.

The average numbers for the last 2 seasons:

Sheed     12.5 pts.     7 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .432 fg%

Hill      12.5 pts.     5 rbds.     2.5 assts.     .510 fg%

When it comes to the questions of Hill's injury history and age, he's 2 years older yet has played 9 more games in the last 2 seasons (152 - 143) than Sheed. Knowing he pretty much missed most of 3-4 seasons during his career he's not an "old" 36 and has shown his durability as such.



 

TP for the stat check also!

[Neurotic Guy]

I completely understand that Sheed is much more of an important "get" than Grant. He fills one of the main needs for the C's (size and defense). But casually throwing out that Grant played 82 games in a walk year discounts what he really did for a team in total turmoil. I think that the idea of being "petrified" of any sort of injury issue for Hill is a bit of a cop out as well since it was just last season at 36 he was able to play a full 82 game season and it was Rasheed who was only able to play 66 games due to various injuries at the age of 34.

All I'm saying is discounting and downgrading a player like Hill is cheap and doesn't say much for the person doing it. He's a vet who was a great player in his youth and now at 36 is a player who shoots at a solid percentage, brings a veteran presence and isn't going to "hurt" you like a younger, less experienced player is more apt to.    

I went back to read this thread because I wondered where anyone had discussed being petrified of an injury or was cheaply discounting or downgrading him.  All I found were a couple of references to him being injury-prone (true enough), statements that he'll be 37 (true), one comment that he's lost a step (true and hardly a cheap discounting of Hill), and one who said he's a loser -- referencing (I think) him choosing a losing team ahead of us (silly statement, but probably not intended too seriously).  

I'll state again that I hope the C's get Hill -- he'll be a solid addition.  I'll also repeat that it is doubtful that not getting Hill means they won't compete for a championship next year (sorry about the multiple negatives -- too tired to rework the sentence).