Bob Sura is capable of putting up a quiet triple-double any given game. He is the type of player which doesn't impress you but you look at his stat sheet after the game, you see 10 points, 10 assists, 10 rebounds and say how did he do that ? The only problem for Sura is he turns the ball over alot. Which is understandble considering he was a SG who transformed into a PG. He doesn't quite have that PG feel yet. Sura would remind us alot of Francis on certain dribbles and passes. Damon Jones was 1st in assists per minute last year, also 2nd in NBA in assist to turnover ratio. Damon Jones hardly turns the ball over and is a good ball handler. Something Sura isn't and Francis wasn't. So you see, we can do good either way I feel. Bottom line is both Sura and Damon Jones are better than Tyron Lue. All I know is if Lue starts at PG for us , we are in some serious trouble. Lue is nothing more than a backup PG. At least should be on a contending team
Sura shot a putred 27% from 3 land to go along with A/TO ratio at 2.2. These numbers are very consistent with his career. Lue shot 38% from 3 land to go along 2.7 A/TO, both consistent with his career if ever slightly off (consider like Sura they played on sucky teams last year). Jones shot 36% from 3 land to go along with a whopping 4.6 A/TO. He also played even better with higher minutes late in the season and shined in the playoffs. The last thing the Rockets need is a wildly inconsistent role player like Sura unless he is an emergecy/10th man. If we don't get DJ, I'd much rather look to get Mike James (38% 3, 2.8 A/TO), who probably isn't better than Lue by may be comparable, than Sura, who I know isn't near as good as Lue if you value consistency and efficiency. I'd only sign Sura for the veteran min with the understanding unless the Rockets were playing extremely stagnent, or up by 20 with 5 minutes left, he may not play. Don't let a couple games when the season was over and Atl players were playing for nothing except future contracts fool you.
I wouldn't rule out Jason Terry in a sign and trade. He makes right at the te and have only 1 yr left. With the exception of this past yr, he had a 2:1 to ratio and shot around what Francis did. He can score when he needs to and is more willing to distribute the ball than Francis was. I wouldn't mind signing Jones though.
DS, you dont want to 'overspend' but you are willing to give a contract through 4 to 6 years? See, that's where you and I differ. I see those longer contracts AS overspending. While the per year dollar is lower you are LOCKED in for longer which reduces your flexibility down the road. We saw that with Moochie. Basically if you make a mistake it is harder to correct. Personally, if we have the money I would rather have it for more money over less years. That way if the player is a bust you can move him in trades. His contract wont be an albatross because it would come off the books much sooner if it was a 3yr deal rather than a 6 year deal. Players are always MUCH easier to move closer to the end of their deals no matter what the per year price is. The flexibility of that is huge for a team like the Rockets who have a while to build around 2 star players. No matter the money I just am not enamored with giving out contracts longer than 4 years to role players.
I agree, Its not the amout per yr, but the amount of yrs. utah offered Terry a 3yr contract and Atl matched, now he has 1 yr left and is very tradeable. Had Taylor's contract been 3 or 4 yrs, he would be very easy to move.Alot of these guys want 6 or 7 yr deals because next cba, the league is going to try to push a 4 yr limit which i think is ideal. Its good for the players and the team.
Exactly! Players want security. But teams want flexibility. The only middle ground is giving them more money for less years. The Players get the money they want, and the team gets the flexibility. Now, not all teams can afford to pay more money up front, but for the team to win in the long haul that's what they have to do. That fexibility, the ability to have movable players just makes it much easier to build and it allows teams to get under the mistakes they make in the past. It also puts the onus on the players to play at a higher level since their contract is shorter. They cant just relax and be fat and happy that they have a check for 6 years. They have incentive to continue to play at a high level to get their money for 3-4 years and if they play well enough they can get even MORE money on another 3-4 year contract. That incentive to play well (for both sides) is very important.
Deuce, Leebigez, I just don't entriely agree with the philosophy. For instance, if you sign DJ for 18 million over 3 years (about a full MLE) you almost assuredly overpay relative to his value. But if you pay 18 million over 5 years, there is a very good chance you get an underpaid player relative to his contributions. You can't just think it terms in negative long term contracts (Mo, Mooch, Maloney). You have to consider bargain long term contracts players like Redd, Mobley, Posey, and Howard. Those players have even more value relative to their skill because they are under market value and are/were locked away for many years. Secondly, in the 18 mil over 5 scenario, but unlike the full MLE for 2 or 3 years, it leaves you with another half (or close to it) MLE that can be very useful to pick up another player, like we did last year with JJ. Thus again, 5 years, 18 million, I think that is a good potential gain/potential risk contract for Jones. 3 years at 17-18 million has less of an upside, even if he does perform to that 5 mil a season level or better in year 4 you will have to really ante up to retain him. That is why it is just better to lock him away long term for a reasonable contract you think the odds are better than not you get market value or better production from him.
