Reply With Quote
I'm of the firm belief Fisher was put on this earth to the Spurs, so I would have to say no to him. One way or another he would find a way to do it whilst being part of the team.
Agree with Bruno that Fish is at a stage in his career where it would be difficult for him to accept a very diminished role. He was the starting point guard of the Lakers just two days ago.
I actually think the Lakers had to trade him because they just didn't want to deal with telling him he was going to be the 3rd PG in LA.
I'm of the firm belief Fisher was put on this earth to the Spurs, so I would have to say no to him. One way or another he would find a way to do it whilst being part of the team.
I forget how many s read headlines, but don't actually watch the games. Here's an article from ESPN that says it pretty well. I don't have the time or the inclination to argue with dumb people tonight. Read it or not. Believe it or not. But don't be surprised if the Spurs try to sign him if he gets bought out.
-------
Derek Fisher is a pretty serious guy, particularly when it comes to people pointing out those (generally age related) deficiencies in his game. So it wasn't surprising, after winning Wednesday's game against the Clippers with a last second drive past rookie Eric Bledsoe, he poked one of the most prominent "Fisher sucks!" criticisms with a pointy, game-winning, hero stick.
"I've been in that situation before," he said, interjecting into his own very well-detailed breakdown of how the play developed. "Many of you have do ented how easily guys get around me at the top of the floor. When you're in the middle of the floor, and a guy can go left or right regardless of what hand he is, it's a very tough spot to be in. I'm not as fast as they come, obviously, and I can get around a guy if I have the ball on the top of the floor, in the middle like that."
After every game, we get complaints about Fisher's inability to stay in front of "quick point guards," and how the quick ones consistently tie the Lakers in knots. But it's not really quick point guards who hurt the Lakers, but good ones, and most of the good ones are quick. The reason has less to do with Fisher's relative lack of agility than the team's shortcomings defending the pick and roll and in transition. (Fisher, it should be noted, is one of the team's more effective players at disrupting the opposition's break, whether by taking a charge or dropping to the right level to break up a pass.) I once asked Aaron Brooks, as quick as any player in the league, if he was quick enough to guard himself. He said no. Brooks can't guard Brooks, Rajon Rondo can't guard Rajon Rondo, and so on.
Many aren't quick enough to guard Fisher, especially off a screen, or even in the open floor, as Wednesday's final sequence demonstrated. He's not (last night's stunner notwithstanding) a quality finisher near the bucket, but the guy gets into the paint all the time. More than many fans would like. And he's almost certainly the slowest starting PG in the NBA.
The point isn't that Fisher is some all-world defender who just as strong on the ball as his strongest colleagues, just that this particular criticism is overblown. He has weaknesses defensively along with strengths, but it's as a collective where the Lakers succeed or fail keeping points off the board and Fisher's understanding of those mechanics are his greatest asset as a defender. If he were such a destructive force, there's no way the Lakers could have posted such strong defensive numbers over the last two seasons. In reality, when he hurts the team Fisher almost always does so on offense, whether with questionable attacks of the rack, the more than occasional P.U.J.I.T. (pull up jumper in transition), or what has over the course of his career been a low shooting percentage.
But he certainly makes big shots, no question. Nor is he afraid to stick up for himself, and did so Wednesday after a moment of strength and triumph, meaning he doesn't just have ice water in his veins, but an impeccable sense of timing. Maybe his inspirational speeches aren't the only reason teammates believe he could have a career in higher office?
lol quoting ESPN
Then why would the Lakers want to give all that up?
Translation: Reading is not my strong suit, so I'm just gonna fire back something and put lol in front.
B'bye.
i ing hate Fish. Absolutely hate that dirty piece of . Just like I hated Horry pre-2004.
But...he'd be a damn good backup pg on this team for 10-15 mins
I agree with GSH, depending on matchups, against the slower backup point guards, and undersized shooting guards he could possibly defend those positions. He can still run a offense, and still give 110% on defensive end, and of course knock down a 3. I can't remember a point guard who can knock down the 3 still efficiently, and Pop would probably love him for that.
Somethin called a luxury tax...
Derek Fisher has gotten old and slow. There's no two ways to look at it. That said, he would be mostly playing against the other's team backup PG, so it's debatable whether that matters much.
The biggest issue with Fish this season is that his top offensive asset, the 3 point shot, has taken a nosedive. He's only shooting 32% from downtown. As much as Neal has struggled with his shot, he's still shooting a decent 38%...
soooo butthurt
That, coupled with the fact that they have other second-tier PG's. They don't feel like they dropped off at PG by trading him, but they could upgrade the team going forward by bringing in Ramon Sessions, because of his age. Not that hard to understand.
If the Spurs needed a starting PG, bringing in Fisher would be stupid. And since we have Tony, bringing in Sessions would be stupid too. But it made sense for the Lakers.
Right. Let me rephrase that... why keep blake over Fisher?
I like getting players who have a chip on the shoulders and the way the Flakers let him go make me like. You know he is going to play his heart out against the Flakers if we play them and I sure as don't want CJ/Smiley as our backup PG..
I can't argue with that. He's not the player he used to be. The problem with Neal is that he has really struggled when teams bring a trap (which they do often when he's at the point). I know he's improved some, but it's still a problem. Fisher doesn't have that problem.
I don't think there's any doubt that Fisher can run the offense better than Neal. He's a true point, and he's been doing it a long time. Comparing them as players is a little rough - they're two different animals. But let me ask you this:
If we were in a playoff game, and Parker was just absolutely gassed. It's a close game, and you just need to bring someone in to make sure the game doesn't get away from you before you put Tony back in - would you want it to be Neal or Fisher? Maybe more to the point, would Pop want it to be Neal or Fisher?
How about just letting Mitch Kupchak explain it:
Kupchak said that once the Lakers had a deal in place to obtain Sessions, whom the GM admitted the team has coveted since last season, he pursued the Houston trade to unload Fisher because it would not make sense -- rosterwise or financially -- to have four point guards with Sessions, Fisher, Steve Blake and rookie Darius Morris.
Kupchak said a consideration also was made regarding how awkward a potential transition would have been to keep Fisher and have him accept a supporting role behind Sessions after Fisher's years of starting.
"I know he would have been professional," Kupchak said. "Personally, I think it would have been a tough position to put a player like him in ... It's just hard to do."
Kupchak characterized the trades as "something that we did as an organization, trying to get younger and more athletic."
We need him as a backup. Having him as a backup there was problematic.
That's what Ginobili's for.
It would be Gino, and he's with the Spurs...
Yes, and Diaw would play the Horry role. I know. You're just full of wisdom.
or something
Problem solved. Backup? We don't need no steenking backup.
Heck, I would want the ball in Manu's hands even if Tony isn't gassed...
Nope. We already have Ginobili.
Man, I would love to have Fisher; a great leader and one of the great clutch shooters of all-time. I'd love to see him in the 03 Kerr role of outside shooting off the bench when the other guards aren't getting it done or are in foul trouble. Plus Corey Joseph is flat-out not an option this season.
or next season.
Sorry - I left out one paragraph from Kupchak, that was farther down the page, and finishes his thoughts on why to trade Fisher:
"Even though we made two separate deals today, you kind of have to look at it as one big deal," Kupchak said. "One deal was designed to bring a player here and the other deal was designed to make it easier for the player you're bringing to succeed, and on some level make it easier on the player that he's replacing to continue with a career or the effect in the locker room."
The Lakers literally didn't feel like they could keep Fisher as a backup. I, for one, would love to have him as a backup. I'm guessing the Spurs FO would, too.
Bruno....you had me there for a second....I thought you were serious about Dawson..lol...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
