tttppp wrote:JGC wrote:tttppp wrote:Then whats the point of trading for him in the first place?
Because the Lakers can just not pick up his option at the end of the season.
With Fisher, they would have had to pay him the $3.4M next season plus tax penalties.
If the trade was just for Fisher, I'd be ok with the trade. But the Lakers gave up a 1st round pick. A first round pick gets you an impact player. Hill will most likely not even get many minutes and there is a chance the Lakers don't even keep him. So there's a strong chance the Lakers gave up a 1st round pick for nothing.
I liked the idea of using the first round pick to get Beasley. Since that deal fell through, it would have been better for the Lakers to keep the pick.
They had to include the pick to incentivize the Rockets to deal. The Rockets basically paid for the pick by acquiring Fisher's contract.
A first round pick doesn't get you an impact player necessarily. The vast majority of first round picks are actually non-impact players. I mean great example is Jordan Hill. He was what the 8th overall in 2009? And he can't get off the bench. But he costs money. The Lakers don't want to have to draft a guy in the late 20s, and then have to pay double if not more than double than his contract requires and then he can't even get off the bench.
But I understand where you're coming from, heck I wish we could have just traded all of our garbage for impact players but the reality is that Houston isn't going to pay money to get Fisher. How does that make sense when they could just keep Jordan Hill and let him walk at the end of this season? You want them to NOT save that money, lose Jordan Hill and pay MORE money to acquire Derek Fisher? Not happening in the real world. They agreed to pay Derek so they can get the first round pick. I would have preferred Beasley as well, but TWolves pulled out at the last minute even after everyone agreed verbally it sounds like. Can't deal with someone who doesn't want to deal.