Let me reiterate that I'm not all about getting Derek Fisher. I'm open to some other players out there. Just not Eric Snow. Here are the important numbers for me in regards to Derek Fisher. Playoff career numbers: 1) Games: 117 2) Games Started: 68 3) MPG: 25.9 4) PPG: 8.5 5) FG%: 42.6% 6) 3P%: 43.1% (144 out of 344 attempts) That's all you need to know. One of the top 5 Point guards in terms of ball pressure. A career 2.7 Assists/To ratio. And a big time playoff performer. 43.1% from 3 point land for the playoffs does not lie. The Rockets do not need a great distributing point guard. We need someone to play D, hit the open 3, and not turn the ball over. Just like the Bulls in the 90's, the Rockets from 1993-1997, and the Lakers in 2000-2003, put the ball in the hands of your superstars and hope everyone else doesn't screw up. Okay maybe that's a little harsh. At least hope everyone else provides steady play and makes an occassional play in crunch time. That's the formula folks. That tried and true for 13 of the last 14 championships. The only exception being the 1999 Spurs with Avery Johnson at the point. The only other point guards I would considerable serviceable are Brent Barry, Damon Jones, Troy Hudson, and my darkhorse, Mike James. All of these candidates at the point position has their warts. But Eric Snow is not a viable candidate in my book.
I vote for Derek Fisher. Wow, I feel IQ points going up even as we discuss this issue. Smart Basketball is going to feel soooo good! Surely I will come down from "ecstatic mode" eventually. The Rockets are going from the agony to ecstasy in days! I feel like I am dreaming.
What do you guys think about Rafer Alston? Just a suggestion, I wanna know what other Rockets fans think.
LOL. More like RIET 2.0. Yes, he did hit some big buckets in the playoffs, but look how he fared against the championship Pistons: .306 FG% .375 3PT% (averaged .426 in the rest of the playoffs) 6.4 PPG 1.8 APG Not that good. Like I said before, he DID step up his game in the playoffs a little bit. However, his numbers dropped significantly in the NBA Finals, when compared to his Conference Finals stats. I don't like that. More food for thought: Fisher's efficiency rating last year: 6.62 (career 8.05) Snow's efficiency rating last year: 13.66 (career 11.50) Arroyo's efficiency rating last year: 12.34 (career 7.49) Barry's efficiency rating last year: 15.46 (career 13.43) Hudson's efficiency rating last year: 5.62 (career 8.44) Alston's efficiency rating last year: 11.37 (career 7.32) Fisher's Approximate Value (last year): 5.4* Snow's Approximate Value (last year): 9.2** Arroyo's Approximate Value (last year): 7.7*** Barry's Approximate Value (last year): 7.9^ Hudson's Approximate Value (last year): 2.2`` Alston's Approximate Value (last year): 8.0^ *A score of four or five indicates a player who plays about 1000 minutes and who doesn't deserve many more. **A score of nine indicates an average regular or a good sixth man. ***A score of six or seven indicates an average bench player or a good player playing under 1500 minutes. ^A score of eight indicates a fair regular or an average sixth man. ``Scores of three or less usually indicate players who are unimpressive in limited playing time. Explanations of "Efficiency Rating" and "Approximate Value" can be found here
Fisher got hurt in the Wolves series. He was never healthy for the Finals. His 117 total playoff games is the accurate testament. Not 5 games in the Finals when he was hurt.
For what it's worth from SA columnist: http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/bharvey/stories/MYSA070104.1C.Harvey.1aa79f92.html Buck Harvey: No, not him again: Rockets' big move Web Posted: 07/01/2004 12:00 AM CDT San Antonio Express-News If the Spurs had a sense of irony — as well a sense of humor — they would go after a free agent named Derek Fisher today. They have the perfect jersey number for him, after all. No current Spur wears .4. Fisher would fill a need, too, if the Spurs hadn't just used a first-round draft pick on a backup point guard. Now Fisher doesn't matter as much. But 200 miles to the east? Fisher would change the Houston Rockets in a second, if not less. Fisher's L.A. friends will get considerably more attention, beginning with the biggest free agent of them all. Kobe Bryant could get a seven-year, maximum deal, or a 20-year one in maximum security. Then there's Shaquille O'Neal, who isn't technically free but is sure trying to get there. Never has anyone wanted to move from L.A. to Dallas as much as he does. But just a sub last season, mostly ignored now, is a smaller Laker who would also impact the NBA in Texas. Fisher would, again, also impact the Spurs. The Lakers hope Fisher stays with them, and maybe that happens. Last week Fisher appeared on the "Jimmy Kimmel Live" show, and Kimmel asked Fisher whether opting out of his contract meant he was leaving the Lakers. Fisher said returning was "definitely a possibility." Leaving is definitely a possibility, too. Fisher won't know whether Bryant and O'Neal will be Lakers next season until September or October, and Fisher can't wait to find out. He will probably have an offer in a few days. Specifically, an offer from the Rockets. Those in Houston expect it to happen and Fisher, according to ESPN reports on Wednesday, would like to play for the Rockets. There are financial reasons, naturally. The Rockets will have the mid-level exception to offer, which should be more than enough. The basketball reasons make sense, too. The same, small cog that fit between Bryant and O'Neal would fit just as well between Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming. But it's more than working with a scoring swingman and a huge center. It's what Houston's pair needs. McGrady isn't to Ming what Bryant was to O'Neal. McGrady, for one, couldn't call Yao "fat and out of shape" unless he spoke slowly or used an interpreter. McGrady isn't Bryant in the standings, either. He has been a scorer, not a winner, which is what the Orlando general manager, John Weisbrod, talked about this week. Then Weisbrod suggested McGrady isn't capable of leading a winning team. Weisbrod tries to sell his trade, and in doing so he's selling McGrady short. If Bryant had been in Orlando instead, he wouldn't have won 50 games. Still, McGrady also hasn't proven a thing yet. And when he walks into the huddle in Houston, he will find another novice in Yao. Yao is the full package, a 7-foot-5 man with skills. But is anyone sure there is a relentless force inside? The other Rockets are similarly wired (they didn't need Juwan Howard, because they already had one in Mo Taylor). So, what Houston coach Jeff Van Gundy needs is, simply, Fisher. Fisher is a character guy. A rugged player. A pro. A smart defender who knows how to take a charge. And, of course, a spot-up shooter who can get off a jumper in record time. That's why the Spurs tried to sign Fisher in the summer of 1999. That helped Fisher get his long contract with the Lakers, and how did he repay them? Talk about a sense of irony. The .4 shot was Fisher's career moment. And those who were around the Lakers — those who were tired of Kobe and Shaq and the circus — were genuinely happy for him. That said, Fisher was only a role player with the Lakers. And if he hadn't been paired with stars, he never would have had his career moment. Maybe the fourth-best player, too, can't be the toughest on a champion. But if the balance changes in the state of Texas, if the Rockets become more than a collection of tall, young talent, then don't be surprised if an overlooked free agent this summer is a reason. A sense of irony? More like a sense of déjà vu.
thanks for that read.... man that was pretty good! a nice refreshing outside observation. I vote arroyo then d fish. i think arroyo is a young fish imo. plus his age is better for our team, i would hope but i think we are still gonna be a year or tow away
heh pretty convincing article. Before this finals, I probably would have stayed away from fisher if for nothing, at least for his constant flopping and whinning. But seeing the interview and how completely devasted he was about losing, and taking it so gracefully while giving all the credit to Pistons, I liked that. I'm still not certain that he is our answer, but it sure wouldn't hurt to give him a shot.
I want Arroya, Hudson, or Daniels. I don't know if Daniels can play point, but he is going to be really good in the future. Same thing for Arroya. Hudson was injured last year, but I remember him in the year before that. He went crazy against the Lakers in the playoffs. I think all three of these guys are young. I want a young point that we can get a long term deal done with. My number one choice would be Daniels.
"D. Fisher is a scrub. We complained about SF's bad shooting - DF can't shoot, few assists, can't rebound, has little defense. Whats not to like?" ARE U CRAZY!!! Did u watch the playoffs the past five years. DF is a hell of a player.
These guys seem to bring the best bang for the buck. And they are younger than Fish and Snow. Lets getem!
Jumpin' Jehosaphat! I simply cannot believe all the anti-Fisher comments I'm hearing. IM-very-HO, Fisher has already proven (1) that he's an effective role player when teamed up with a pair of superstars, and (2) that he's a winner, because he's played that role well in helping deliver three championships. I can't help but think that some of these comments are coming from Lakers fans who are trying to downplay his value so that he returns, because I live in California now and have a lot of Lakers-fan friends, all of whom think he's fabulous. I mean, I realize that there's a legitimate debate about who would be the BEST point guard to add to our dynamic Mac-Yao duo, but that's a far cry from saying Fisher sucks or that he's a scrub. I'd like to respond to some of the anti-Fisher remarks ... "Doesn't every opponent PG turn into an all-star against the lakers ??? Why do people say Fisher play good defence ? Plus I guess some people didn't watch much laker games in the regular season. Fisher really sucked a lot." Hey, c'mon, why refer to your fellow fans as "some people" who "didn't watch much laker games"? We're all on the same side, aren't we? I did watch just a few Laker games during the regular season, and Fisher did struggle. But, remember that he was getting limited playing time for much of the season because of Payton's arrival. And, as Da Man has pointed out, Fisher stepped it up big time in the playoffs. As he's done pretty much every year. Would you rather have a guy who delivers great numbers during the regular season but disappears in the playoffs (ask Sacramento about Peja), or a guy who comes through in the playoffs no matter what he's done in the regular season? As for the surprising number of people who say Fisher is a bad defender, I am just plain baffled. Anyone care to guess where he stands among the league leaders in drawing charges? How many guys will stand in there and do that, especially at 6-1? Remember that that's as good as a steal. Sure, there are guys like Tony Parker and Stevie Francis who have given him trouble, but Parker and Francis are capable of exploding on EVERY point guard in the league. And in any event, Fisher has only lost a series to Parker once and he's never lost a series to us. "Like I said before, he DID step up his game in the playoffs a little bit. However, his numbers dropped significantly in the NBA Finals, when compared to his Conference Finals stats. I don't like that." This is true. But that's a criticism that applies to every player on the Lakers. Why single out Fisher? With this reasoning, Kobe would certainly be unattractive because his points, rebounds, and assists, and shooting percentages were all lower in the Finals than in the rest of the playoffs. Shaq might even be unattractive because, although had more points per game in the Finals, he had fewer rebounds, assists, and blocks (though he did improve his free throw % from 43 to 49). I think the Pistons deserve a lot of credit for how they cuffed the entire team, not just Fisher -- they really caught the Lakers off guard with their desire, intensity, good coaching, and defensive energy. And in any event, as someone has pointed out, Fisher wasn't healthy for the Finals. Besides, I'm pretty sure that Fisher's numbers in previous Finals, when he was healthier, were just fine. I'm not prepared to write him off just because his numbers dipped from stellar playoff figures to mediocre numbers when the same thing happened to the rest of his teammates, including Kobe. My view of Fisher is that he's always been able to make big plays at critical moments, whether hitting a 3-pointer late in the 4th quarter or drawing a charge on a key possession to preserve a small lead. He did it against us this year, and he's done it to lots of teams in the past. "I agree, D. Fisher is a scrub. We complained about SF's bad shooting - DF can't shoot, few assists, can't rebound, has little defense. Whats not to like???" Fair enough if you want to say he has few assists and rebounds, but I can't see how it's fair to say that he can't shoot and has little defense. What's wrong with his shooting percentage? It was bad during the regular season this year, but it was just fine in the playoffs this year and during the regular season and playoffs of previous years. And, as I said before, Fisher is a good defender. He's regarded around the league as a good defender. That's why he draws so many charges. Believe me, it ticks me off to no end when I think he flops on one of our guys, but at least he stands in there, and I'd be plenty happy if he were doing it FOR us instead of doing it at a critical moment that causes a turnover and knocks us out of the playoffs. As for calling him a scrub, consider this. If I told you last year that we could have Gary Payton play point guard on our team with Yao and T-Mac, I bet most people would've been pretty excited. What Phil Jackson quickly realized is that when you've got two scorers like Kobe and Shaq, you need a PG that knows where to be, plays good defense, and gets the ball to the right guys to get the offense going. That's why Fisher ended up playing so many critical 4th quarters. As for the criticism of his assists, I think that's partly the way the Lakers ran the triangle. The point guard wasn't always the guy making the last pass to the scorer. With the Lakers dynamic duo, the ball usually found its way to Kobe, who shot, drove the ball and dished, or passed to Shaq into the post. In effect, Kobe took assists away from Fisher. I think Fisher was okay with that. With T-Mac and Yao, even if we don't run a triangle, you may see any PG's assists go down when they get to the Rockets because there will be lots of 2-man games with those two where McGrady gets the assist. Egads, my sincerest apologies for the long post. I just truly think Fisher is one of the best available PG's who can help us win a title. And it would be nice to have a guy who has already won one, because both the Lakers and the Spurs had players with rings from other teams when they got their own. (Don't underestimate that!)
Those that say that Fish is a scrub is just as extreme as those that say that Snow is a scrub. I disagree with both opinions. What's confusing to some people is that they think that Fisher is miles better than Snow, but only look at Fish in the context of the CHAMPIONSHIP LAKERS. But they refuse to put Snow in the same light...because, well....he didn't play with the Lakers! Duh! It goes both ways. Put Fish on the Sixers and people would be ignoring Fish....then put Snow on the Lakers and Snow would have three rings. The truth of the matter is that it was a Shaq/Kobe show during the championship run (Horry was the hero two years ago). If we get Fish. I'm happy. If we get Snow I'm happy. But we can do better... Get Arroyo!
Ok, one more thing. Let's remember that we're not looking for another superstar here. McGrady and Yao will do most of the scoring, so we just want a guy that fits the following criteria: 1. A winner and fierce competitor. Fisher has rings. He always plays hard and smart. And I like the fact that Fisher takes so many charges and always dives for loose balls. 2. Keeps turnovers down. I think Fisher is fine here. 3. Hits shots even if he hasn't been shooting a lot. We don't need a scoring PG, which is Hudson's main strength. We need a guy who can hit key shots when he's not shooting a lot. I think Fisher fits that bill well. With a lot of scoring PG's, including Payton and others, if they're not shooting a lot, they sometimes struggle with their offense and can't hit key shots late in the game. Fisher's a solid spot up shooter who can take a few shots all game but hit the critical dagger when McGrady or Yao sends it to him out of a triple-team late in the 4th quarter. 4. Good defender. Important for every position on any contender. Fisher is a good defender. I don't really understand how so many people can say he's worse on defense than Hudson or Barry. Snow might be better against some guys because he's a bit taller, but Fisher is one of the better defensive PG's in the league right now. 5. A winner and fierce competitor. I think the San Antonio newspaper article says it all, so sorry for repeating some of it.
I'd be fine with Snow. He seems solid, and probably realistic. I still like Fisher better because I think he's got our kind of moxie. I'd also rather have Fisher or Snow than Arroyo just because the former two are both more proven and have playoff experience. But I'll admit I've only seen Arroyo in a couple of games (he seemed solid); maybe if I saw him more I'd get more comfortable with what he can do for us. But I don't really understand the popularity of Troy Hudson. He's a great player and would probably do fine with Houston, but a big part of what makes him great is his scoring. We need a guy who's great because he runs the offense well, plays good defense, and generally doesn't score that often unless it's really needed late in the game. A younger Jalen Rose would be my ideal guy, though perhaps not affordable.
funksoultrader, Is your real name Derrick Fisher? Or maybe his agent? Lets look at all our options. Fish and Snow may not be our starting PG for long (30+). We may try to acquire better later.
Check out Arroyo's game. He's mean, aggressive and smart. Nice shooting touch from all ranges (even the 3). He has nice fast-break PG skills; accurate. You'll just have to check out a few of his games. See for yourself. He's one of my favorite PGs, other than Hinrich and Nash. Hudson seems like a scorer/shooter to me. Not really a PG. Not sure I'm sold on him. He's a good player. But I want our PG to actually have "PG skills." Not just "SG skills." We did that already. I do love Hudson's shooting and scoring ability, though. What I like about Fish is that he's not scared to take the clutch shots. He's plays hard nosed D. and he can hit from the outside AND drive. He's a good pick. If anything that will tip in his favor is that intangible thing, you said, "moxie!" He's got that for sure! Snow is big, strong, and a well-rounded PG. All-around player. I kinda like him as our "starter" better than Fish just because of match-up problems we may have with Fish (taller PGs). Snow just seems like a great 82 game player. Fish...hmmm, I love him off the bench if we had both Snow and Fish. But I'm getting greedy now! And those of you are are not familiar with Lue. You're gonna be surprised. He very good PG! Not a starter. But can give you some really good quarters; good at stealing the ball and running the fast-break.
The problem with Arroyo is he is a RFA and Uah can freely spend. Unless we work out a deal with Utah we don't want to waste a couple of weeks and make other FAs disinterested before Utah matches. He was my 1st or 2nd choice, but there isn't enough of a gap from the rest to mess around too much. It looks like Barry is out of our price range. More or more I do like Fish for the Rockets (because Arroyo and Barry are unlikley), though I think people have way inflated expectations of what he can still do. Yeah he stepped it up in the playoff on adrenaline, but we need a guy who can get us playing consistent all year long. We are not an experienced team like the Lakers than can just decide to turn it on at the end--and even then look where that got them the last 2 years. Thus my major concern is not that he shot poor not because GP was brought in (he didn't shoot poor when Shaw or Lue also platoon)--my major concern is all he has left in his body is spurts of good play. He will be 30 soon, and the way he has thrown his body around and the extra tough games via accumulated playoffs games he might be 30 going on 35 next year. What we have to understand is Fish might have 1 or 2 good years left, he might have none--we really don't know. Thus if he wants more than the Lakers would of paid (3 mil), ONLY provide a 1 year deal MLE (4 mil, 80% of MLE) (assuming the 1 year MLE is allowed, I see nothing in Coon's FAQs against it). The thing we can't do is mortage a lot of our future ability to sign a PG with Fish, e.g., 3 year 13+ mil. Then if last year was indeed the start of his decline as a player (much hunch is it is) we are stuck with a dead contract. If we wants a 2 year deal, maybe 5.5 mil (1/2 the MLE). Could even give him the player option on the 2nd year. 3 year deal, 7 mil is ok (also with player option on last year). Those pay Fisher OK and give him options, while also protecting the Rockets. If Fish balks at those contracts we should look elsewhere. We could try Arroyo for 3 years at 10 mil, or 4 years at 15, maybe a little more. Thats is a lot safer than Fish for anywhere near that kind of money because at worst Arroyo is just reaching his prime (and maybe still rising). Or we look to Alston (up to half the MLE) or Damon Jones (1.6 exemption, saves the MLE) up to half the MLE . They had equal to better years than Fish, they just are not as experienced. Than you can look for another PG for the vet min (Ward). Or we trade for someone like AD. Also, Chucky Atkins or Alvin Williams were unprocted in the expansion draft and thus probably could be had for a piece of the TE alone, might even get a 2nd rounder from Toronto to do the latter (assuming our docs clear AW). AW is like a more athletic Snow with a better jump shot, at least if he can return to 80% form of what he was 2 years ago. In sum I like Fisher, but there are too many other options we can pursue if his price is not very reasonable because he is a risk.
