Marquis Daniels or Grant Hill?

[Mike-Dub]

Would we have been better if we signed Grant Hill instead of Marquis Daniels... Grant Hill would have been a great fit and is a savy veteran but I say Marquis... He is 28... a better slasher and can play some of the point just like Grant could but most importantly like I said he is 28... 9 YEARS YOUNGER THAN GRANT AND HE STILL CAN IMPROVE... Just would like to see wether you guys think Grant Hill would have been better than Marquis.

Oh and if someone could tell me how to insert a poll to a thread TP for you!

[mgent]

Would we have been better if we signed Grant Hill instead of Marquis Daniels... Grant Hill would have been a great fit and is a savy veteran but I say Marquis... He is 28... a better slasher and can play some of the point just like Grant could but most importantly like I said he is 28... 9 YEARS YOUNGER THAN GRANT AND HE STILL CAN IMPROVE... Just would like to see wether you guys think Grant Hill would have been better than Marquis.

Oh and if someone could tell me how to insert a poll to a thread TP for you!

I'd say Hill, just because he fits our team's needs better.  I was never a fan of his age either though.  Daniels is certainly more athletic.
And the 'add poll' button is right next to the start new topic button.

[Mike-Dub]

Would we have been better if we signed Grant Hill instead of Marquis Daniels... Grant Hill would have been a great fit and is a savy veteran but I say Marquis... He is 28... a better slasher and can play some of the point just like Grant could but most importantly like I said he is 28... 9 YEARS YOUNGER THAN GRANT AND HE STILL CAN IMPROVE... Just would like to see wether you guys think Grant Hill would have been better than Marquis.

Oh and if someone could tell me how to insert a poll to a thread TP for you!

I'd say Hill, just because he fits our team's needs better.  I was never a fan of his age either though.  Daniels is certainly more athletic.

Yeah... It's a really tough decision I really think Hill would have been a great fit but I think Daniels will too... they both give good strenghts to our teams in the same and different ways... I think Daniels may be better because he is 28 but Hill would have been a perfect fit too.

[Jon]

I'm happy with the acquisition of Daniels, but I'd probably be a little happier with the acquisition of Hill.  Personally, I don't think the age thing matters all that much.  Hill is older and has an history of injuries, but it's not like Daniels is the Cal Ripken of basketball either.  And I don't put much stock in the argument that Daniels will still be around in 3-4 years and Hill won't.  Yeah, that's true, but if Marquis Daniels is ever starting on this team it means one of two things: 1) we're mediocre and aren't going to win a title anyway, or 2) we've signed Lebron.  And in the latter case it just won't matter who we have at the 2/3 next to him anyway.  

Overall though, I'm not complaining.  We have someone who defenders have to worry about, capable of playing enough minutes to back up Pierce and Allen, who has some playoff experience (from his days in Dallas).  I'm happy enough.  Even without the signing of Wallace, the signing of Daniels would be an upgrade over everything we did last offseason combined.  

[BASS_THUMPER]

id rather have a young and athletic 20 plus pts a nite than a injury prone vet


dont we have enuff of those already?

[Mike-Dub]

I'm happy with the acquisition of Daniels, but I'd probably be a little happier with the acquisition of Hill.  Personally, I don't think the age thing matters all that much.  Hill is older and has an history of injuries, but it's not like Daniels is the Cal Ripken of basketball either.  And I don't put much stock in the argument that Daniels will still be around in 3-4 years and Hill won't.  Yeah, that's true, but if Marquis Daniels is ever starting on this team it means one of two things: 1) we're mediocre and aren't going to win a title anyway, or 2) we've signed Lebron.  And in the latter case it just won't matter who we have at the 2/3 next to him anyway.  

Overall though, I'm not complaining.  We have someone who defenders have to worry about, capable of playing enough minutes to back up Pierce and Allen, who has some playoff experience (from his days in Dallas).  I'm happy enough.  Even without the signing of Wallace, the signing of Daniels would be an upgrade over everything we did last offseason combined.  

Definitely agree and TP mgent... couldn't find it any where lol.

[Mike-Dub]

id rather have a young and athletic 20 plus pts a nite than a injury prone vet


dont we have enuff of those already?

Daniels will be a great backup for us but he isn't going to be a 20 plus pts a nite player and last year Grant played all 82 games for the first time in his career so he seems to be past his injury problems... Neways would have loved getting Grant... But I LOVE THAT WE GOT MARQUIS!