RealGM

Rodney Stuckey.

I am by no means a Stuckey hater, but him at his max potential is not a winning situation for the Detroit Pistons. The simple reason is that he doesn't compliment anybody on the floor in any realistic situation for our team. The only way a player with Rodney Stuckey's style could be a part of an elite NBA team with a major role is along-side another star player... where almost any NBA player could thrive. Lebron isn't coming here anytime soon.

In order to add something positive to an NBA lineup a player (specifically a guard) must do/be at least one of the following:

1) An elite 1-on-1 scorer that can get a nice percentage shot anytime they want and/or be good enough to draw double teams to open up the floor. (All the star backcourt players)

2) Their teammates must have value when they have the ball. If the only thing that a guard offers with the ball in their hands is scoring (no court vision), and they don't do that at an elite level, they can't be a part of an elite championship caliber team with a major role in the offense.

3) They must have value when the ball isn't in their hands. They can either be a consistent spot up jump shooter from 3 or from mid-range, or be athletic/active enough to create space/scoring opportunities off-the-ball.

Stuckey is none of these.

1) Stuckey is not and never will be an elite 1-on-1 scorer. He doesn't have elite ball-handling ability, he doesn't finish above the rim, and his mid-range J off-the-dribble is not good. The only one of these three that he can actually improve is the jumpshot, and even if he were to develop a consistent mid-range J off-the-dribble, it could be easily countered by putting a perimeter defender with length on him (2 or 3) as he's only 6'4/6'5. Stuckey will be able to score at a nice clip in his prime, but never at an elite enough level to make up for the fact that he complements nobody else on the floor with his lack of court vision and outside shot. Only so much improvement can be made to a players J, and Stuckey more than likely won't ever have a great mid-range game because he doesn't have the greatest touch, and his lack of height & elite handles will make it difficult for him to consistently get off good looks.

2) Stuckey is a scorer... naturally. He isn't a PG, a facilitator, a distributor, etc, and shouldn't be running an offense. This doesn't make him a bad player, but the Pistons right now are trying to make Stuckey a player that he is not. He isn't Chauncey, and he isn't a franchise player either. Stuckey could be a positive part of a roster minus a susperstar if he didn't touch the ball so much, and didn't have a major role in the starting offense (in a 6th man type role) but he's our starting PG, and 2nd leading scorer.

3) Stuckey's not a consistent shooter, and more than likely wont be one anytime soon.


Trading him right now makes sense because he's still young, and his value should be rather high. There are some teams with established superstar #1 scorers that a player like Stuckey would definitely add a lot to, and if I were one of those teams I'd definitely give up a nice package to acquire him. Plus, we have a player who offers basically all the same things in Will Bynum. While there might not be players available who are improvements talent-wise from Stuckey, there are definitely players we could acquire if we packaged him and a couple other guys who would be complementary pieces to the guys we have and improve our team. Some things we would need include:

A player with the court vision and passing ability to consistently set up our scorers.
A player with something in their offensive repertoire that is high-percentage that they can consistently get in a 1-on-1 situation (like Chauncey getting to the line almost when he wanted)
A solid interior defender, or another good rebounder.
Just more players that are good pieces to the puzzle like Rip

Stuckey's value remains highest with Detroit, which is why you should be reluctant to move him. You're not going to get anything of good value with Stuckey alone, and while he would be a strong sweetener to another move it's not likely to be worth it.

I wouldn't move Stuckey simply because you're not going to get fair value for him.

HeroicKennedy wrote:Stuckey's value remains highest with Detroit, which is why you should be reluctant to move him. You're not going to get anything of good value with Stuckey alone, and while he would be a strong sweetener to another move it's not likely to be worth it.

I wouldn't move Stuckey simply because you're not going to get fair value for him.

Interesting. It's nearly impossible to gauge how much individual teams would value certain players, but I agree he'd be best traded in a deal as a "sweetener" as you say. Primarily because his small contract would make that necessary. And even if teams weren't willing to give up what would seem like ideal value, it's possible that a slight downgrade in talent that brings in a player(s) with qualities that our team lacks could end up improving our team I think.

And vege/LeBron2NY2010, I don't see why what I said is so dumb... Did you read the post?

The only way I'd trade Stuckey is if we'd be bringing back a young C also on his rookie scale contract......which is not likely to be available for us.

313 Professor wrote:

HeroicKennedy wrote:Stuckey's value remains highest with Detroit, which is why you should be reluctant to move him. You're not going to get anything of good value with Stuckey alone, and while he would be a strong sweetener to another move it's not likely to be worth it.

I wouldn't move Stuckey simply because you're not going to get fair value for him.

Interesting. It's nearly impossible to gauge how much individual teams would value certain players, but I agree he'd be best traded in a deal as a "sweetener" as you say. Primarily because his small contract would make that necessary. And even if teams weren't willing to give up what would seem like ideal value, it's possible that a slight downgrade in talent that brings in a player(s) with qualities that our team lacks could end up improving our team I think.

And vege/LeBron2NY2010, I don't see why what I said is so dumb... Did you read the post?

Unfortunately i was stupid enough to read all the bs. That's why i posted the bear facepalm.

313 Professor wrote:
And vege/LeBron2NY2010, I don't see why what I said is so dumb... Did you read the post?

I'll answer that for you...what makes Rodney Stuckey's game so unique and unlike any other player that his mere presence would make a team unable to win a championship? What you're implying is that no other championship team has ever had a player like Stuckey on their roster.

And that deserves multiple facepalms.

LeBron2NY2010 wrote:

LOL

313 Professor wrote:And vege/LeBron2NY2010, I don't see why what I said is so dumb... Did you read the post?

ok... so you suggest we trade away rodney stuckey, a 23 year old 6'5 combo gaurd with a ceiling that has not been reached yet, just because his value is high... dont you think his value is high for a reason?
these are his numbers so far this year....
Year Team FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
09-10 DET 0.411 0.182 0.835 1.1 3.3 4.4 4.2 1.4 0.1 2.73 2.93 19.1

compared to last years...
Year Team FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
08-09 DET 0.439 0.295 0.803 0.9 2.6 3.5 4.9 1.0 0.1 2.19 2.75 13.4

obviously there is improvement and he will continue to get better, also his low fg% is attributable to the fact that oftentimes he drives to the basket and gets no call but is fouled enough to change his shot

also you suggest we replace him with bynum, here is the difference:

stuckey: 23 years old
bynum: 26 years old, 27 in a couple of days(january 4th)

stuckey: still improving
bynum: what you see is what you get, he will never be more than what he is

bynum: can only play pg, sketchy also
stuckey: can develop into a good pg, has good court-vision, although he would best be suited playing alongside a pg just like D-Wade

bynum: poor FT shooter (77%)
Stuckey: Good FT shooter (84%)

also stuckey plays 10 more MPG than bynum yet stuckey averages 2.7 TO compared to bynum 2.4 TO

stuckey plays baron davis without the playmaking abilities. his mere presence is making the team worse.

i think i would dump him for a second rounder at this point.

Not only that, but you're implying that Rodney Stuckey is a cancer. You're implying that Rodney Stuckey has to be elite at his biggest strength (scoring) to have any positive value to our team. Then you're saying that we should keep Will Bynum because "he offers the same thing Rodney does".

c rasheed wrote:stuckey plays baron davis without the playmaking abilities. his mere presence is making the team worse.

i think i would dump him for a second rounder at this point.

This should be a bannable post.

RustInPeace wrote:Not only that, but you're implying that Rodney Stuckey is a cancer. You're implying that Rodney Stuckey has to be elite at his biggest strength (scoring) to have any positive value to our team. Then you're saying that we should keep Will Bynum because "he offers the same thing Rodney does".

lol right?

Bartender wrote:

c rasheed wrote:stuckey plays baron davis without the playmaking abilities. his mere presence is making the team worse.

i think i would dump him for a second rounder at this point.

This should be a bannable post.

No way. If he was being sarcastic, it's funny. And if he's serious, it's even funnier.

http://www.82games.com/0910/0910DET.HTM

When Rodney Stuckey is on the bench, we are outscored by 11.9 points per 100 possessions. We're nearly even when he's on the floor.

The team scores 9.9 more points per 100 possessions with him on the floor, and gives up 2.2 points fewer on defense per 100 possessions when he's on the court.

I understand people like to have a fall guy when the team is not doing well, but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Stuckey's a classic example of a young inexperience player being forced to carry his team. In the long run, this will be very good for his development.

Players take more than 3 years to peak, Stuckey's only played a total of a season and a half to this point. Give the man his time.

I don't know which topic is worse, this one or the Fire Joe D one. Really. How laughable are this 2 topics? And the guy still want to argue geez.

the problem with trading stuckey is he is so young with so much potential, how much would we regret if we trade him and then he flourishes
here's an example, granger in his first 2-3 seasons wasn't so great, now how would they feel if they dealt him and then he became who he is, here are his stats to paint a better picture:
Year Team G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
05-06 IND 78 17 22.6 0.462 0.323 0.777 1.7 3.2 4.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.03 2.71 7.5
06-07 IND 82 57 34.0 0.459 0.382 0.803 1.4 3.3 4.6 1.4 0.8 0.7 1.65 2.99 13.9
07-08 IND 80 80 36.0 0.446 0.404 0.852 1.2 4.9 6.1 2.1 1.2 1.0 2.14 3.62 19.6
08-09 IND 67 66 36.2 0.447 0.404 0.878 0.7 4.4 5.1 2.7 1.0 1.4 2.46 3.09 25.8
09-10 IND 17 17 36.6 0.410 0.356 0.823 0.8 5.4 6.1 2.6 1.6 1.0 2.88 3.29 24.4
if they gave up on him after his first 2 seasons, which were whole seasons btw, they would have missed out on his current production.
i'm not saying stuckey = granger because they play very different positions and roles, but i honestly see stuckey going in the same direction