Yes, we already have two of those 70% of guards that are better than Fisher. Sura and James Their salaries combined are way less than Fisher's. Fisher couldn't start in Golden State (before Davis) and some games he played single digits in minutes. golden state golden state
I dont see why nobody has yet to write anything beyond insults. If fisher was that bad, he would have started for a championship team. Anybody who has an idea that is not common within the board, they get flamed by stupid insults.
Getting Derek Fisher is crazy. His contract is a cap killer, the guy is overrated, a couple of good runs that's about it.
Mike James is a superior offensive player than Fisher. Bobby Sura's hustle and rebounding outweigh Fisher's flopping. If we're going to add a point guard, we need to add one that will be clearly better than the ones currently on the roster - Derek Fisher is not it. And not only is it not it, he's on a large contract that keeps him well-paid until his late-30s. He's a bad choice.
I didn't flame you with stupid insults, I'm just giving it to you as a fact. Fisher doesn't fit this squad and it's crazy to get a guy like that with his contract. Fisher, as far as I'm concerned, is a career backup. Mike James has a championship ring as well, maybe he would have been able to start for the Lakers championship teams who knows. Who is a better fit then Fisher at the Point? Mike James, Bob Sura, Gary Payton, Nick Van Exel, etc. I don't care if Fisher has rings or not, every player starts off without a championship and wins one. Just because Shaq and Kobe carried him to a couple of rings doesn't mean we should eat his bad contract and give him a starting spot. Using that logic, Kenny Smith would have had teams lining up to sign him after he started for back-to-back championship teams. The same with guys like B.J. Armstrong and John Paxon.
Does Mike James James superior offense make him better than Fisher? Thats crazy. What kind of money do you think Fisher deserves??
Fisher is a smart, solid player. I really like his shot selection while he was a Laker. He knows when to shoot and when not to shoot. Fisher is also a pest on defense. He is good at drawing charges, something perhaps he can teach Yao. While Fisher is a good passer, he is not a great one. His entry passes to Shaq were decent, but Kobe, Horry, and and Shaw were much better at creating the right post-feed angles than Fisher was. The most important thing about Fisher is that he has great championship experience and he is a great influence in a locker room. I suspect Fisher's maturity is one of the things that held the crazy Shaq-Kobe experiment together for so long. However, our team is not in turmoil and we don't need a vet like Fisher to take us to the promise land. Fisher is needed at young teams where he can earn his keep with his leadership. Our guys are mature and we have solid guards. I love Fish, but we don't really need him.
I hate to ask you this, but would you like to explain how Fisher doesnt fit this squad. I thought my top post clearly defined why I thought he was a good fit. What do you disagree with? his contract?
The fact that Mike James is better in 50% of the game does indeed make him better than Fisher. Out of curiousity - what does Fisher do well? He's not a good shooter, his defense consists of reaching with his arms and then falling down with a pained look upon his face, he's not a playmaker, and he's not an exceptional passer.
Are you a fan of GSW? Why are you trying to ruin the Rox franchise with another big contract they couldn't possibly get rid of in a couple of years?
Derek Fisher:11.64 Bob Sura: 14.25 David Wesley: 11.25 Mike James: 11.5 All were +/- 5 mpg. If that's your argument, Fisher would be basically a lateral move to the backup point guard. PER is skewed in favor of point guards (assists), and he'd be a marginal upgrade over Wesley. Van Exel coming off his worst year ever has a 10.62 PER - he'd probably come at 1/4 of the cost in terms of 05/06 salary, and none of the additional commitment. And finally, compare it to the market: Damon Stoudamire is coming off a 15.36 PER, and he is 13 months older than Fisher. He got 4 years, 17 million. Fisher has 5 years, 30.85 million left. To put that hypothetically- Les is not a completely free spender. Suppose you trade an expiring contract for Fisher- would you rather have Fisher, or sign a free agent to a 4 year, 25.46 million dollar deal (hell, actually that's probably above MLE!)? There's your opportunity cost. If you can convince Stoudamire to go to freaking Memphis for 4 years, 17 mill, market allowing, you can do much better than Fisher. This is the team coming off Stromile Swift. Don't wipe out your flexibility on guys that just give you a little extra depth.
you've been here for how long? and i'm pretty sure you've been to other message boards as well to know this much: you bring in an idea or opinion, don't be afraid to get some backlash. it comes with the territory. you want to know why Fisher won't be any better than Wesley or James? Simple: 1. Defense: He's more of a sieve on defense than James and Wesley. The only defensive technique he has honed over his career is the flop. 2. Lacks Quickness: He can't take anyone off the dribble (like James can), can run the fast break well enough (like Sura or Wesley can do AT TIMES), and can't finish. 3. He's old: We already have Sura, Wesley, Barry and James, why do we need another 30 year old undersized PG? 4. He's making more than Sura, James, and Barry combined: tack on #s 1, 2, and 3 and he's even more of a NON-option. He's played on championship teams...so what? So did Charles Jones, Pete Chilcutt, and Scotty Brooks. He started and your point is? The only thing that was asked of him is to knock down the open jumper. Wesley, James, Barry and to an extent Sura can all do that just as consistently.
I'd love to get Terry. But he'll sign for much more than the MLE. He's on a $7 mill per contract right now. And his value is probably higher now after a pretty good season and playoffs.
i'll try a simple argument: he's not that much better than what we have at the point (sura/james/filler). any way if we try to get him on the team, we would end up moving laterallly talent wise. is it worth it? don't think so.
man, my first post explains every reason why I like him, and all the things he did well. i am guessing your arguing my post that you didnt read. smart. Since when is 39% from behind the arc not good? The part in bold is looks bad for your basketball knoweldge. I seem to think intangibles, experience, and other things matter.
KTvoss, I don't think the addition of Fisher is quite the foregone conclusion as illustrated by all of the previous posts. However, what makes it harder to swallow is that he isn't a free agent, and we already did our Fisher-fishing last year, when he was. From what I remember, a whole bunch of us, including me, would have liked to have him on our team, and I think a number around 2-3 million was the payday floating in our minds...but now that he has his contract, there's just no way. 6 mill a year, Derek Fisher, at 35 is Matt Maloney-esque. I gotta love Fisher's experience, but you know, Tyronn Lue pretty much had that same experience as well, and look what happened to him. I think it really is as simple as 'Fisher's just not worth the money' (and in response to your question, overpaying for someone that would bring us a championship is by definition not overpaying, since he would be bringing us the championship [even though I don't think he's the missing piece to do so]), which, in essence, is what everyone else has been saying. He'd be nice for the team, but at around half the price and years on his contract.
