8p9s Roundtable: Trade Deadline Disappointment

Considering the rumors that were out there — for Jeff Teague or Ricky Rubio — should Larry Bird pushed harder for another point guard?

Washburn: Absolutely not. Neither of those guys, in my opinion, are as good as the starting point guard they already have. George Hill is more versatile than both players, is a far better defender than both players, and is loved by his teammates and coaches. Unless one of those guys could have been gotten for Solomon Hill and Chase Budinger, then the Pacers did the right thing.

Donahue: No. It’s O.K. to want a point guard, but who you can get is defined by what you have to offer. Bird may or may not have been willing to part with George Hill, but teams would want more. “More” in this case is probably Myles Turner or first-round draft picks, and that really eats into the value of most propositions.

Medworth: I’m a huge George Hill fan. I don’t think he gets enough credit for what he does for the Pacers. My dream is that you get one of those guards and move George Hill to the 2. That means that Monta or Stuckey have to go to the bench, but I’d be okay with that if it meant a true point guard and George Hill.

Wade: No. The Pacers didn’t have much to offer outside of a first-round draft pick, and reports from various sources made it clear that at least Atlanta wanted a ton back for Teague. Bird probably had little to make the deal happen anyway, and he isn’t one to overpay out of desperation (especially when no desperation exists for the franchise right now).

Furr: Why does everyone want to trade George Hill? The best point guard trade the Pacers could make, in my opinion, would be to trade Monta Ellis and George Hill’s starting positions. Let George Hill play the shooting guard, run off screens and attack, while letting Monta be the primary ball handler.

Next: Missed Opportunities?