RealGM

I think Derek Fisher was traded because Mike Brown asked for it. The Derek Fisher trade just doesn't make sense to me, because even financially, his contract would have been up anyways next season and he'd make only 3 million. For all his leadership and all that, it seems too penny-pinching, even for the current Lakers ownership. Nor was Jordan Hill an offer the Lakers couldn't refuse; he barely got any playing time until the very end of the season. Not exactly a player the Lakers were desperate to get into the rotation. So I don't buy any financial or basketball reasons.

Instead, consider the highly questionable timing of the trade, which went down right before the trade deadline.

For a team gearing up for a championship run, why not trade Fish after the playoffs, when he has the most value? Why risk letting him go to another team in our conference?

Again, timing:

It was reported just ONE WEEK EARLIER, right around March 8, that Derek Fisher and Kobe Bryant were organizing players-only meetings. Among those player-only meetings, it was reported that they were discussing going back to running the triangle. Think about it. Players-only meetings that discuss the previous coach's offense?

At the very best, that's a loss of confidence in the coach. At the worst, it's plans for a mutiny.

My guess is that Mike Brown stormed into Jim and Mitch's offices and gave them an ultimatum: trade Fisher or else I will lose this team.

Seems he may have lost it regardless.

Miles, the problem was that Brown didn't have the cojones to bench Fisher, so he had to get rid of him to let Sessions start. though not expected at the time can't say I would prefer Fisher to Hill now.

I don't know if it's so fair to paint Mike as such a nefarious character. Inept sure, but he doesn't seem to be the one to make any demands or go behind players back. If the Lakers kept Fish they would have had 3 point guards on the roster and not enough playing time for each. Blake has a bigger and larger deal; Fish is the one that's far more acceptable for another team. And the Lakers did almost trade Blake to the T'Wolves for Beasley. If that deal went through Fish would still be in P&G.

Also I doubt management looked at the prospect of Fish going anywhere as a "risk".

snaquille oatmeal wrote:Miles, the problem was that Brown didn't have the cojones to bench Fisher, so he had to get rid of him to let Sessions start. though not expected at the time can't say I would prefer Fisher to Hill now.

Ironically, keeping Fish as a starter and bringing Sessions off the bench would be the right coaching move!

suggesting the lakers should have traded fisher in the off-season doesn't really go with the idea that trading him now for an expiring meant he'd be off the books next season and they could use a 2012 draft pick to make it happen. if they waited til next yr, now their only option to get that salary relief is to get a team to take him on with pure cap space or a TPE, which is very unlikely.

fisher was not worth his contract, much less double his contract, and if the choices were to keep playing him, bench him but still have to pay him, or trade him away and get salary relief, i go with the latter.

RocketPower23 wrote:I don't know if it's so fair to paint Mike as such a nefarious character. Inept sure, but he doesn't seem to be the one to make any demands or go behind players back.

I'm not painting Mike as a nefarious guy at all. He's not tough or confrontational. He has an ingratiating personality. If he had trouble in the locker room, there's no way he'd be able to handle it directly. He would either ignore it or hope it goes away. Fish and Kobe's voice carries way more weight than his, and he knows it.

Think about it: Players-only meeting discussing the coaching? Knowing Mike Brown's personality, what do you think he would do?

If the Lakers kept Fish they would have had 3 point guards on the roster and not enough playing time for each. Blake has a bigger and larger deal; Fish is the one that's far more acceptable for another team. And the Lakers did almost trade Blake to the T'Wolves for Beasley. If that deal went through Fish would still be in P&G.

I disagree with this, because Blake often plays back up to Kobe, Mike Brown likes going small to match up with other teams. Both Fish and Blake can play off the ball, because we sorely lack a SG back up.

Also I doubt management looked at the prospect of Fish going anywhere as a "risk".

If they didn't, that was just another misstep by the Lakers. Fish has always been considered the premier leadership and professional guy in the league. They also traded him to the Rockets who were still in the playoff hunt, and we know how close the standings were this season in the Western Conference.

I mean, there's a reason why the Thunder picked him up. Everybody knows Fish is a limited player right now. But he'll still step up for big shots. And most of all, he's a leader, a consummate professional, who keeps a team together and focused and prepared.

And those are all invaluable assets for a team trying to win a championship.

dockingsched wrote:suggesting the lakers should have traded fisher in the off-season doesn't really go with the idea that trading him now for an expiring meant he'd be off the books next season and they could use a 2012 draft pick to make it happen. if they waited til next yr, now their only option to get that salary relief is to get a team to take him on with pure cap space or a TPE, which is very unlikely.

fisher was not worth his contract, much less double his contract, and if the choices were to keep playing him, bench him but still have to pay him, or trade him away and get salary relief, i go with the latter.

I agree with you in terms of Fish's basketball production, sure. But the financial "burden" of Fish's relatively small contract is just not a convincing reason, to me, of losing such an important leader before a championship run.

Of course, unless that leader was threatening the coach's standing on the team. Something Fisher is not afraid of is attacking incompetent leaders.

And again, the timing...one week after Fish organizes a players-only meeting about coaching, then Fish is gone?

Blake plays spot minutes at the SG. We were seeing more of this because MWP was suspended; he still plays a majority of his minutes at PG. Clearly there would be a conflict that the coaching staff would have to resolve; trading one was clearly the remedy.

If the Lakers had Fish right now we wouldn't be any closer to a title. We'd still have matchup issues against the Thunder and our personal would still be limited. Maybe our team resolve would be greater; I'll give the team till the end of the series before putting their lack of resolve in stone. The Thunder picked up Derek because they had no one to back up Westbrook with the injury to Maynor. With their talent, they could somewhat counter Derek's deficiencies.

The Fish deal was a last second move once the Beasley deal fell through. I think it was done just at the deadline.

i think the simple answer is easiest to roll with. fisher was not worth his contract, so they dumped him. evidence that it indeed was about financial burden is that michael beasley isn't on the roster right now when the lakers could have easily absorbed him via TPE. they didn't cause of the money.

And again, the timing...one week after Fish organizes a players-only meeting about coaching, then Fish is gone?

well, it was the trade deadline, the last hour infact, so i think it has more to do with that.

dockingsched wrote:

And again, the timing...one week after Fish organizes a players-only meeting about coaching, then Fish is gone?

well, it was the trade deadline, the last hour infact, so i think it has more to do with that.

Not sure what that means; I don't think teams in the playoff hunt are desperate to give up young bigs for a low first-round pick at the trade deadline.

To me, it means that it took a week after the players-only meeting for Mike Brown to persuade the Lakers to trade Fish.

RocketPower23 wrote:Blake plays spot minutes at the SG. We were seeing more of this because MWP was suspended; he still plays a majority of his minutes at PG. Clearly there would be a conflict that the coaching staff would have to resolve; trading one was clearly the remedy.

No, the fact that we have Goudelock and Darrus Morris on the roster who aren't even in the rotation does not tell me that we are very deep at either guard positions.

If the Lakers had Fish right now we wouldn't be any closer to a title. We'd still have matchup issues against the Thunder and our personal would still be limited.

Highly disagree; for example, if the Mike Brown were fired on March 8, we might actually have a sensible offense, and the team would have played harder for a coach they respect.

Maybe our team resolve would be greater; I'll give the team till the end of the series before putting their lack of resolve in stone. The Thunder picked up Derek because they had no one to back up Westbrook with the injury to Maynor. With their talent, they could somewhat counter Derek's deficiencies.

Even Scottie Brooks acknowledges that Derek won't give you that much on the floor. But what he would give you is professionalism and leadership. Again, invaluable for a championship contender.

milesfides wrote:

dockingsched wrote:

And again, the timing...one week after Fish organizes a players-only meeting about coaching, then Fish is gone?

well, it was the trade deadline, the last hour infact, so i think it has more to do with that.

Not sure what that means; I don't think teams in the playoff hunt are desperate to give up young bigs for a low first-round pick at the trade deadline.

To me, it means that it took a week after the players-only meeting for Mike Brown to persuade the Lakers to trade Fish.

the lakers could have had beasley if they wanted, but they didn't want to absorb his entire deal, therefore beasley is not on the lakers. this gives credence to the idea that an eye on the finances is indeed a real concern for the lakers and explains why they would salary dump a player that was not worth his salary.

We're talking about the same management who sent Chris Mihm to the Grizzles just to save 1 million. At this point no salary dump would surprise me.

dockingsched wrote:i think the simple answer is easiest to roll with. fisher was not worth his contract, so they dumped him. evidence that it indeed was about financial burden is that michael beasley isn't on the roster right now when the lakers could have easily absorbed him via TPE. they didn't cause of the money.

I'm not sure if that's applicable at all. Beasley would have been an added 6+ mil (well, prorated for the shortened season), +luxury tax. Plus, he was a restricted free agent, so they would have to either commit tens of millions on him or lose a first round pick for nothing. Beasley would have been a major financial commitment.

I don't think that necessarily applies to Fish. He was making only $3m anyway, and he's shown his value is really big shots in the playoffs and professionalism and leadership. It's easily understandable why the Lakers would want to dump Luke Walton, who has been complete deadweight, but not Fisher. Sure, a hurt Chris Mihm, I get. But Fish?

Everybody knows how important Fish was to the Lakers beyond the floor, let alone his partnership with Kobe Bryant in getting everybody prepared and focused.

Losing all of that before the playoff push, to get rid of a minor contract?

That's really exaggerating the financial burden of Fish's contract, imho.

As penny-pinching this franchise seems to be under Jim Buss, no way do the Lakers take the initiative to desperately get rid of Mr. big shot, 0.4., celebrated L.A. hero, captain of the locker room, model of professionalism, Kobe's blood brother, right before a run at the title.

Maybe money does play a factor, but Mike Brown's money. He's owed $18 million.

not having the balls to bench a player? gtfo!!!

I hope someone has brought up that without Jordan Hill we wouldn't have gotten out of round one.

Or, you can say that maybe a guy who is shooting 64% on 3-pointers in the playoffs might have been even a greater factor than Jordan Hill's two notable hustle performances.

PS: Ramon Sessions? Shooting 19% from 3 in the playoffs, and directly contributing to Kobe miracle ball all playoffs long.


And perhaps, Fisher wouldn't have let Bynum and Pau give away games 5 and 6. Because playing hard every night and being professional are MAJOR problems with this team.

milesfides wrote:Or, you can say that maybe a guy who is shooting 64% on 3-pointers in the playoffs might have been even a greater factor than Jordan Hill's two notable hustle performances.

PS: Ramon Sessions? Shooting 19% from 3 in the playoffs, and directly contributing to Kobe miracle ball all playoffs long.


And perhaps, Fisher wouldn't have let Bynum and Pau give away games 5 and 6. Because playing hard every night and being professional are MAJOR problems with this team.

miles, i know you splained this years ago...but i dont remember...your avi....is it from a band? i always think of t-rex, or something when i see it...

milesfides wrote:Or, you can say that maybe a guy who is shooting 64% on 3-pointers in the playoffs might have been even a greater factor than Jordan Hill's two notable hustle performances.

u gotta be kidding with this downplaying of hill's play for fisher's 7 total 3 pters all playoffs.

chefy wrote:not having the balls to bench a player? gtfo!!!

tell me exactly when Fish didn't deserve to come off the bench, but yet remained a starter.