And 1 guy makes under $9M and the other makes $15M... I'll take the latter. This was nothing more than Cuban being Cuban. It is a bad deal fir Dallas.
You don't know that for a fact. As if vets haven't gotten a lot better at shooting as they age? Your also basing a shooing chart on Ariza from 4 yrs ago compared to his most recent season which IMO is just plain silly and agenda driven. Lat time I checked parsons was borderline terrible from 3 after allstar. He's very very streaky. He went from 41% to 37% in matter of 30+ games. That would mean he was shooting under 34% which is Arizas career avg as a 10 yr vet. Let's keep it real we didn't upgrade but we def didn't downgrade. Whatever extra playmaking parsons brought is small potatoes compared to Arizas superior defense. Because parsons is absolutely not a better shooter. All you have to do is look at parsons ft% to know he's not a dead eye shooter.
That's all fine and good. I'm over Parsons, but Ariza is definitely a downgrad. What these stats don't show is Parsons superior ability to create his own shot off the pump fake or dribble. Better coast to coast ball handler too. If these stats help you rationalize or sleep better that's fine, but saying they are equal is just not true. It's lïke when people try to compare players to Jordan using stats instead of in game context. Ariza is a poor mans Parsons, and unfortunately we are poor.
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/stats/_/id/2426/trevor-ariza Ariza is a career 34.7% 3pt, last two years are even better. Look stuff up before you just go jabbing.
People who are ripping Ariza are forgetting what made him frustrating the first time. It was not his shooting that was a problem per se, it was his ball handling and shot selection. Ariza was a pretty decent three point shooter, and he was good around the basket, as long as he didn't have to handle the ball too much. With Harden here, I don't think shot selection will be an issue. Harden should be taking most of the jump shots, and I'm sure he will make sure that happens. As far as ball-handling and running plays, Parsons was not exactly amazing at initiating a plays from the top of the key either. The one thing Parsons was superior at, IMO, was fast break execution on straight-in drives to the basket. But I am not sure that one skill is worth tying up the rest of your cap space for the next three years, especially when you can argue that Ariza offsets that skill with his far superior defense.
Backtrack a page or two and please tell me what there post-season stats are... look at 3pt percentage/RPG... then get back to me
Bingo. Ariza was terrible the first time around because we handed him the keys to the car and said, "Here you go, kid. Let's see if you can drive this thing." And he was simply not capable of being a #1 or even #2 guy. Here he comes back, 4 years later, a much improved player -- better 3-point shot, more veteran savvy. And best of all, we just need him to be a capable #3 or #4 or even #5 guy. I'm fine with that, and I'm guessing he'll do pretty well in that role. And the money we save can be spent on another starter (maybe) or bench depth.
That bugs me too. Ariza and Parsons on the roster gave this team a ton of flexibility in lineups. But, not $23 million a year worth of flexibility.
He was so bad that Phil Jackson played him around 40 MPG in the NBA finals on route to a championship too.
As a true fan of this team (Regardless of who comes or goes) I do understand the choice to not match Chandler Parsons offer. Here is a list of reasons why i would prefer to have some type of cap flexibility going forward. Next year, there will not be as many Potential contenders with Cap space as there was this year...so the list will be shorter for Free agents wanting to join a contending team and possibly get the Max. Positioning for 2016 - I believe the Rockets are on a short list of teams the KD35 would possibly want to play for (although i dont think he will leave OKC) Either way we look at it. We still have a 50+ win team, and if the coaching improves we still have what it takes to contend. (Maybe not win it all, but at least contend) So i will take a 50+ team with future flexibilty over a 55+ win team that is still has holes that need to be filled without flexibility Just my opinion...
Ariza is a better basketball player. He provides better defense and is known to turn it up in the playoffs.
Do any of us really ever change from our true nature? I am glad DD is expressing himself more. Not to say I agree with him on the Parsons epic, but opposite points of view bring clarity to both sides.
Yep, if we're going to go with simplistic arguments on this topic, then that's the only response necessary. Also: $15 mil for a glue guy?
One of the most interesting things about getting Ariza, at least to me (and putting aside that I'm still furious that Morey exposed Parsons to free agency this summer when he didn't have to), is simply that he agreed to come back to Houston and play. My guess is that he's very aware that his first go round in Houston was a personal disaster. That he performed poorly in a role he wasn't remotely suited for, but sees the role expected of him this time as a role in which he thrives. That's good news for us. I'm hoping that means his ego is in check. It doesn't hurt that he is going to start, not a sure thing at all had we matched Parsons. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Morey told him the odds were very good that the absurd contract Cuban gave Parsons made the odds of us matching completely dependent on whether we could sign Bosh (or Love, or Rondo - someone of that stature) in the narrow time frame we were handed, and that it wasn't looking good that we'd pull it off. I'm looking forward to that tell-all book Daryl will no doubt write some years down the road. The back stories must be fascinating.
