Statistical Breakdown of Ariza

The thing I find funny is that Ariza was signed to a role player contract but was asked to be a star. He failed as a star, but he had a nice contract for a role player. He now has a bigger contract (IIRC).

Many see his signing back than as one of Moreys mistakes, but I believe that the signing was not the mistake, the mistake that was made was confincing him he would be the star.

 

Here it rolls. Rockets signe Ariza to a star contract last time, but put him as a role payer then send him elsewhere. In his contract year, Ariza turned around and elevated from role player status. Now Rockets gave him another star contract again. If the plan is bad, then send him to another team, wait for another 4 years for his contract year performance.

 

Yeah this was the error. They made a judgement call that Ariza could develop after his lakers playoffs performances and he didnt, he was the same player just asked to do too much than he can based on his talent.

It's simple.

parsons is getting paid 15m, basically the same as Harden IIRC. If you want to trade him, the kicker is 15% taking the load to 17.5m. DENG got 10m annually.

Take the heads outta the sand and the blinders off, Parsons ain't all that. He's an amazing glue guy, but put him in the same role as Hayward had last year and imo he would've struggled alot more.

 

I really never understood the parsons is the "glue" guy nonsense that was thrown around on here

 

I'd like to reference my own thread about Ariza before: In Retrospect: Why did we sign Ariza?

Ariza was what he was, and all of us fans should have been happy to have him as a good defensive player with more than adequate offensive ability next to Yao or another star.

The majority opinion in that thread shows that most people back then understood him to be a good complementary player and not a whole lot more.

Fast forward to today, and I think you're right: Parsons is the exact same case, just with a little better ability to pass the ball.

 

I don't think it's nonsense. He helped everyone else with his movement off-the-ball. He finished around the rim well and was the player would make good cuts to the basket. Also was a good shooter. He was a great complimentary player, but not a star.

 

It's because the backups to Parsons were useless at everything (except Cisco's guarding of Durant)

 

He was a good player on that Lakers championship team- but he was the wrong fit here. I think he'll be a very good fit here.