↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

3-on-3: Reckoning Rodney Stuckey

Modeled after ESPN’s 5-on-5, three of us will answer three questions about a Pistons-related topic. Please add your responses in the comments.

1.  Let’s just start this out with the obvious question: What the heck has gotten into Rodney Stuckey this season?

Dan Feldman: The Pistons have finally stopped asking too much from him. Stuckey is assisting and rebounding at career-worst clips, effectively focusing on scoring. He’s developed a short mid-range game that has helped him shoot a career-best 2-point percentage by giving him another option than driving out of control to the rim. After trending up the last few seasons, Stuckey’s 3-point attempts are wisely coming down. Better selection from long range has produced a career-high 3-point percentage, too.

Patrick Hayes: He’s a totally committed, consistent player who just needed the right coaching and role to thrive. Just kidding. Contract year, contract year, contract year. Stuckey has always had an incredible amount of athletic talent. He’s strong, he’s fast, he’s athletic, he’s versatile enough to give competent minutes at both guard spots and he draws and absorbs and incredible amount of contact. Also, for all of his faults as a full-time point guard, he still takes pretty good care of the ball. He just doesn’t try hard all the time, and he said as much in a recent interview with Vincent Goodwill of The Detroit News. So, any team that wants to sign him to more than a short-term deal should be very wary of that — if he doesn’t like the coach or his role or whatever, he’s probably going to “shut down.” But a motivated Stuckey on a short, make-good deal? I’d take that skill-set on my team any time.

Brady Fredericksen: Patrick said it, but the dude wants to get paid. Contract Year Rodney Stuckey is aware of the stink that follows him around these days, and he’s always been capable of shaking it. This year he’s comfortable. Michael Curry had a very un-polished version of Stuckey, John Kuester had a very unhappy version of Stuckey and Lawrence Frank had a very perplexing version. He is what he is — a scoring guard that can give you minutes at both spots. He should come off the bench, and he should use his ability to draw contact at the rim. He wants to cash in this summer and he’s being used right, maybe?

2. We’ve seen flashes of this kind of play throughout his career in Detroit, but what’s the one thing he’s doing this season that has kept him so consistent?

Dan Feldman: I reject the premise of the question. If this holds up, it would be Stuckey’s best season, but it’s been just 18 games. Even now that he’s focused more on scoring than he ever has previously, Stuckey has two other independent higher-scoring 18-game stretches: late in the 2011-12 season and December 2009. If there’s any reason to hope Stuckey keeps it up this time, it’s Maurice Cheeks. Stuckey is finally playing for a coach that likes him. That doesn’t excuse Stuckey for his troubles with previous coaches — a lot of that was on him — but as a moody player, Stuckey has definitely benefited from Cheeks’ confidence in him, and that seems like it will remain all season.

Patrick Hayes: A couple of things. First, Stuckey has had a sneaky good post game for a guard for a while now, he just hasn’t always used it — whether that’s his own fault or the fault of coaches for putting him in bad situations is up for debate (though Stuckey clearly feels it was coaches using him incorrectly). It’s probably a bit of both in reality. Stuckey has been used in head scratching roles by the past three Pistons coaches, but he’s also been content to settle for jumpers too often or barrel into the lane with reckless abandon in search of contact. This season, he’s more under control and he’s using great post moves and craftiness around the basket to get better shots for himself. Secondly, he’s hitting his mid-range shots better than he ever has. In fact, he’s also hitting the three at a decent 35 percent clip, although I’m not sold he’ll sustain that number all season — bad long range shooters don’t miraculously turn into good ones over night, so we’ll see where he’s at when the season ends. In short, he’s looking for his shot more but is also more selective about good shots vs. bad ones, he’s playing more against reserves and he’s, by his own admission, playing harder. Those three things have combined to, finally, make him a pretty valuable player.

Brady Fredericksen: Money aside, I think he’s excited to be playing for something. The last three seasons have been draining to watch as a fan, imagine how it is to be one of those players? There’s something to earn, something to play for and a sign of positivity within the organization — that’s going to get any player going. He doesn’t have to try to be a “star” anymore; it’s apparent he’s not, so just go do what you do and help the team win. The last time we saw a Stuckey who was fully engaged, coincidentally, was 2009-10 when the Pistons were last in a playoff race.

3. Reports have already said the Pistons won’t be trading him this season — so, does it make sense to keep him around with the team pushing for the playoffs?

Dan Feldman: Probably. As we saw with the Josh Smith signing and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope draft choice, the Pistons have prioritized — I’d say over-prioritized — making the 2014 playoffs at the expense of their long-term upside. Part of Stuckey’s league-wide appeal is his expiring contract, but unless the Pistons take a worse contract of a better player in return, using Stuckey’s contract in a trade won’t help this season if the return is a worse player on a multi-year contract and draft sweetener. For a team desperate to make the playoffs, the Pistons can get value from Stuckey from using him the rest of this season, regardless of what happens in the offseason.

Patrick Hayes: Other than Andre Drummond, it doesn’t make sense for the Pistons to oppose trading anyone. That doesn’t mean they should make a lopsided deal or one that improves the team in the short-term at the expense of the long-term, but the team is also simply not good enough to keep anyone other than Drummond off the table. Stuckey is valuable when he’s playing at this level, particularly to a team that is weak in the backcourt as this one is. But he could also help any number of guard-needy teams. I would prefer the Pistons trade him rather than sign him long-term provided they can get good value for him, but he’s also made himself an asset again, so I don’t think there’s any pressure to trade him just because the risk of losing him as a free agent looms.

Brady Fredericksen: If playoffs are the goal, keep him. There’s value in his expiring contract ($8.5 million), and there’s value in a guy who is playing well and has an expiring contract. I’ve always noted that just Stuckey isn’t enough to bring anything back. If the Pistons were to make a legitimate trade, it would probably include Charlie Villanueva ($8.5 million) expiring deal, too. Those are the most valuable trade chips the Pistons have — especially in a year where so many teams want to bottom out. But, if it comes down to keeping Stuckey all season and also making the playoffs, go for it. Just don’t be the team to pay him this summer, too.

47 Comments

  • Dec 6, 20133:37 pm
    by seenable

    Reply

    With Drummond continuing to validate his prospects as a franchise cornerstone-level player, I think the Pistons would be wise to start angling towards the longer-term. Think bigger. They can afford to have those lofty goals now, in part because Drummond and co. look to be good enough right now be able to buoy things in the immediate short term should you lose Stuckey’s production.

  • Dec 6, 20134:42 pm
    by Max

    Reply

    So annoyed by this tiresome, lame assertion about Stuckey playing better due to it being a contract year.
    Also, this discussion about whether or not to trade him is taking place in a void.   Show me the players or assets that can be gotten for Stuckey and then talk about long term versus short term prospects because I highly doubt there is some future windfall or current great prospect that can be acquired in a Stuckey trade.  
    The only real valid point made here seems to be that Stuckey is looking better and taking less shit because the team he is playing for has better prospects for him to be enthused about and his coach actually likes him.  I’d add to this that Billups likes him too and he’s still an alpha who inspires others to follow his lead.  

    • Dec 7, 20134:51 pm
      by DetroitP

      Reply

      Once again spot on.  But I do understand what they are saying if pistons finish lets say ten games over five hundred, they can’t keep Moose and Stuckey both.

  • Dec 6, 20135:28 pm
    by sebastian

    Reply

    Max and I are in agreement, when it comes to the one named, Rodney Norvell Stuckey.
    Why would the Pistons entertain an asinine idea to trade Stuckey? What would the Pistons get in return?

    Stuckey is a perfect 6th-man option. What other player can fulfill the role that Stuckey is providing? Why waste resources on trading for what WE already have at his spot. The 6th-man spot is solidified on this team, as well as the Center position.
    As the unofficial Grand Poobah of the Rodney Stuckey Reclamation Project, I say keep Stuckey in his current role 28-32 minutes per game, 6th man, first guard off the bench and at season’s end bring him back, like WE brought back Will B., but at a market price of ~$7.5 for 4 years.
    Hell, Joe paid Tay, handsomely,  as a Piston and I don’t see why the same should not be afforded to my boy, Rodney Stuckey!

    • Dec 6, 20138:05 pm
      by oats

      Reply

      I hate that contract for Stuckey. That’s just too much money, and longer than I would want to have him on contract for. There’s a reason Joe dumped Prince pretty much right away. The reason is that he badly overpaid a role player. I’d rather the team not do that every time one of their guys is a free agent.

      • Dec 6, 201311:15 pm
        by Max

        Reply

        I’m curious what percentage of players in the league you think are appropriately paid.  

        • Dec 7, 201312:46 am
          by Tim Thielke

          Reply

          If you assume that all superstars and the majority of rookie scale players, as well as a few others her and there are underpaid, then most of the remaining players in the league must be overpaid.

          • Dec 7, 20131:50 am
            by Max

            If most of the players in the league are overpaid than that is just the price of doing business.  

          • Dec 7, 20131:54 am
            by Max

            Also, and I don’t think you really meant this, the way you answered my question makes it sound like you are saying no players in the NBA are appropriately paid.  

          • Dec 7, 20131:55 am
            by Max

            One more point on this.  Most rookie scale players are overpaid because most of them never work out and are total busts.  

          • Dec 7, 20135:11 pm
            by Tim Thielke

            I’m not saying most of the players in the league are overpaid, I’m saying most of the non-star, non-rookie-scale players are overpaid. The upshot of this is that if you want to make a good team without breaking the bank, you stockpile picks, you jump on every chance to get a star, and you stick to signing guys in free agency who aren’t generating much interest and can be had at a bargain (once in a while that will actually net very good players like West or Millsap, but usually just filler pieces).

            I’d say most players in the NBA are not appropriately paid, but probably 20-30% are.

            Most rookie scale players are underpaid. Most of them make under $1M/yr. They may not turn out to be worth playing except in very rare circumstances, but a player worth under $1M/yr is not typically worth inserting into the rotation. Of course, then you also have to consider, what is locking up potential for your team and keeping it away from others worth?

          • Dec 8, 201312:56 am
            by Max

            Name me one team that ever won a title by being cheap with their players.  

    • Dec 7, 201312:48 am
      by Tim Thielke

      Reply

      Because, as otis likes to repeatedly point out (one of few things he is right about), if you pay that kind of money to Stuckey and you bring back Monroe, that’s it. You’re done. You’re not adding any more significant pieces to this team and you have to rely entirely on internal development. Do you think there’s enough room for growth within this sub-.500 team to become contenders without adding any meaningful pieces?

      • Dec 7, 20131:49 am
        by Max

        Reply

        Don’t know why you or Otis think significant pieces can’t be added through exceptions.   And just because the team is 1 game under 500 doesn’t mean they won’t finish the season well above 500 and continue to improve in the future as Drummond ascends to super-stardom.  

        • Dec 7, 20132:24 am
          by oats

          Reply

          Because Chauncey Billups type of signings are exceedingly rare. Exceptions are far more likely to land Nazr Muhammad than anything else.

          • Dec 7, 20132:37 am
            by Max

            Billups was the best or one of the best but there have lots of good mid level exception signings over the years and even some great mini exception signings.    And who cares whether such exceptions are rare?   So is getting a good free agent in Detroit when they are under the cap either way.    

          • Dec 7, 20135:20 pm
            by Tim Thielke

            “And who cares whether such exceptions are rare?   So is getting a good free agent in Detroit when they are under the cap either way.”

            Not really. They’re just never under the cap.

        • Dec 7, 20135:03 pm
          by Tim Thielke

          Reply

          I am working under the assumption that Gores will be reticent to venture into the luxury tax.

          Also, it depends what you define as significant. If you’re talking about maybe a Korver-esque piece, yeah, that could be added. I just don’t think that would be anywhere near enough and I wouldn’t call that significant.

          And I never said the Pistons will finish the season under .500. I asked if you think there is enough room for internal growth on this squad to become contenders, whether that internal growth happens over the remainder of this season or in future years was unspecified and not the point.

          • Dec 8, 201312:43 am
            by Max

            You called them an under 500 team which defines the current squad as such.  
            And yes, I do think a player like Korver would represent a significant improvement and I don’t think the Pistons need another star as they already have four of them.  
            As for internal improvement: the team has a ton of potential for that.  

        • Dec 8, 201312:45 am
          by Max

          Reply

          The Pistons have had there years of being under the cap and they never have gotten the top dogs.   Smith is actually the best high profile free agent signing they’ve ever made that wasn’t an exception and they more often got players like Bison Dele, Grant Long, Ben Gordon and Charlie V.   

      • Dec 8, 20136:23 pm
        by Otis

        Reply

        Tim, do me a favor and let me know what I’m wrong about, wouldja? For one thing, my “big picture” concerns, like what to do with Monroe and Stuckey, are basically 100% of my platform. Trade those creeps, capitalize on their value, and use the cap space to try and lure a big fish and this team is set for the near future. Keep both those slugs and you’re doomed to mediocrity forever.

        • Dec 8, 20136:23 pm
          by Otis

          Reply

          PS: That was hyperbole. You get the point.

        • Dec 8, 20138:03 pm
          by Max

          Reply

          You never name names though.   It’s all well and good to say trade people over and over and over but you’ve got to have some realistic targets or you’re just spinning your wheels.  

  • Dec 6, 20135:31 pm
    by Otis

    Reply

    1. Feldman covered this perfectly, and there isn’t much more to say. They’re letting a pure scorer go out and focus on scoring (in… shit his what, seventh season? God this management is a nightmare). “Why” could be because he’s in a contract year, but between focusing on scoring and his improvement from midrange, that’s all you need to know.
     
    2. I wouldn’t scoff at the 18 game sample size, because I think he had maybe 18 games like this spread across his entire career before this season. I wouldn’t actually bank anything on him keeping this up, and I’d trade him in half a heartbeat, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s finally found himself as a player.
     
    3. That said, there is no defense whatsoever for holding onto him. Joe Dumars has priorities based solely on fostering the appearance of progress, so he should not be allowed to make any decisions regarding the future of the team. Furthermore, and nobody seems to be talking about this, the cap holds for Rodney and Greg are big enough to consume every shred of cap space we have, so the dream of adding perimeter talent starts with renouncing one or both of them. No matter how far this team goes– literally no matter what they accomplish or how far they go– it’s difficult to imagine a scenario where they take significant strides next season unless they trade Stuckey. We won’t add a draft pick, he’s unrestricted, and we can’t keep all of these major pieces or we’ll only have exceptions to spend. This team is going to have some rotten decisions come July, and I don’t see how they’re going to keep moving in the right direction after paying Monroe an extra $10 mil a year to be the same player he’s been since his second season, and after either letting Stuckey go for nothing or giving him another fat contract he won’t live up to. Be nice if anyone, like I dunno Tom Gores, understood this.

    • Dec 6, 20135:44 pm
      by Max

      Reply

      Billups was an exception and we don’t even need to add any stars.  KCP could still develop into the perimeter help the team needs. You’re pessimism is strained and absurd. 

  • Dec 6, 20137:01 pm
    by Edgar

    Reply

    Stuckey’s a decent, but limited offensive player. Given that he’s not a good long-range shooter, not a two-way player, not a rebounder, and generally not consistent, I don’t think he’s good enough to be the sixth player on a contending team unless we’re talking about a team stacked with superstars like Miami. I’d love to flip him for an asset while his stock is relatively high.

    • Dec 6, 201311:15 pm
      by Max

      Reply

      Like what though? 

      • Dec 7, 20136:05 pm
        by Edgar

        Reply

        Rights to a European prospect. Conditional late first-rounder. Couple of second rounders. Part of a larger package for a small forward. I’d take any of the above and be happy.

    • Dec 7, 20132:33 pm
      by frankie d

      Reply

      you just described most elite or very good 6th men.  they are most often players who are very talented at some things, but they have big holes in their games.
      jason terry…corliss williamson….jr smith…jamal crawford…ben gordon…barbs…very good players but limited in some big way. 6th men of the year winners.  
      any idiot watching stuckey play from that first year understood that he was best suited for a 6th man role.  in fact, in his rookie year, in the playoffs, he had his best success in that role.  only dumars stubborn refusal to acknowledge that fact over the years has kept his role in such a confused state, and that organizational failure is the real story here.
      stuckey is simply doing what he has always done – for better or worse – but he is simply filling a different role.  playing that way as the team’s starting pg is a problem.  playing that way as the off the bench scorer is great.  
      just too bad it took the team so damn long to figure that out.
       

      • Dec 7, 20136:02 pm
        by Edgar

        Reply

        Most of the guys you mentioned is that they’re three-point shooters. That’s a skill that fits in with any system and with any collection of players basically. I don’t think Stuckey’s skills fit in seamlessly into any given five-man lineup which makes me think he’s more like a 7th, 8th guy on a good team. I might be wrong though. You’re right that we haven’t seen Stuckey surrounded by talented players on a team that makes sense since his rookie year.

  • Dec 6, 20137:19 pm
    by qm_22

    Reply

    -Why is his play due to contract year? When he came off his last contract year he showed improvement the next year. Not that it doesn’t motivate players, but it isn’t fair to say that when there is direct evidence to the contrary. I’m pretty sure if Lawrence Frank was here, Stuckey would be having a mediocre season at best.
    - Patrick said Stuckey admits he doesn’t try hard. I read the linked article looking for that, and it was an interesting article, but Stuckey never said that. The closest thing he said was mentally checking out on Kuester and Frank, which is pretty distinct. It says he thought Frank was playing mind games with him and he was trying to stop himself from going crazy. Anyone watching Frank’s use of Stuckey (and others) were probably also trying to stop themselves from going crazy as fans. I think Stuckey has always been a guy who checked his ego and think given the coaching evaluations of the people he clashed with he has some reasons for this.
    Moreover, Frank was viewed as having checked out himself, i.e., having a negative attitude and work ethic, by the platinum equity guys evaluating him… That’s pretty bad stuff for a guy who was hired to be a motivator and is a pretty ugly combo with incompetent management. I somewhat wondered if Frank really preferred to be fired and collect his pay without coaching here.
    - I think the article does cover the things Stuckey is doing that cause improvement, I just wonder why that is not a mostly sufficient explanation rather than it being a contract year. Let’s remember how stupidly he was used in his worst season of his career by Frank- Camp in the corner shooting 3s. Noted by Dan in first paragraph as something he stopped doing which has consequently improved his play. That makes him use his biggest weakness as a player and takes away his biggest strengths. Anyone actually think even contract year Stuckey would be this good under that strategy?
    - I’m a big Stuckey fan, but he is probably not retainable, so it’s great he raised his trade value from the depths of the Lawrence Frank debacle. We could keep him if we traded someone else, which his productive play gives us the flexibility to consider.

    • Dec 6, 20138:33 pm
      by oats

      Reply

      1) How did he improve exactly? His contract year was year 4. Year 5 he was mostly the same, except for a dip in his passing numbers. That could be explained by drafting Knight and moving him off ball, so that dip in production might not be a drop off. Still, there is nothing to suggest he actually improved in year 5.
       
      2) I guess he might be saying he mentally checked out when confronted by the coach but he was still playing hard. The thing is, he pretty clearly wasn’t playing hard last year. He was really passive on both sides of the ball. This is part of why I hate the people that blame last year on Frank. Frank didn’t make him into a guy that stands around shooting bricks and not defending anyone. Frank may have had him set up in the corner, but once the ball was in his hands he could have put the ball on the court to work for a better shot. Stuckey didn’t do that. Frank was even more clearly not responsible for the lack of effort on defense.

      • Dec 6, 20138:41 pm
        by qm_22

        Reply

        1) His stats are almost identical between his last contract year and the next. They are slightly worse but he played through injuries. The consensus (IIRC, including the writers on this site) was that he was playing team basketball and more valuable than ever. Either way, if he was a contract player he wouldn’t have played hard like that and would have dropped off, so it directly contradicts the point that he is motivated only/primarily by his contract.
         
        2) I don’t really think Stuckey didn’t play with effort on defense most of the time, especially relative to teammates. I may have missed it. But Frank was responsible for him shooting 3s. Stuckey begged to play a different style, e.g., do something with the ball, but this was clearly by design and something Stuckey sucked at and didn’t want to do.

        • Dec 6, 20139:14 pm
          by oats

          Reply

          Just because a lot of his teammates gave poor effort doesn’t change the fact that his effort was also severely lacking.
           
          You also are just ignoring my point about Frank. Frank does not control his players like in a video game. He put Stuckey in a position where taking those shots would make sense for most players, but it was Stuckey actually taking the shots. I’ve never heard anything that suggests that Frank would have a problem with Stuckey catching it in the corner and then attacking the basket to try to create a better shot. Frank was big on setting up spacing in order to run plays, but he seemed to be pretty relaxed on what players choose to do with that spacing. I also seem to remember Frank hinting that he wished Stuckey would be more aggressive.
           
          Let’s look at what Frank did in New Jersey to get a better look at what kind of coach he was. I don’t recall him having a problem with Vince Carter playing like Vince Carter, and Carter definitely would put the ball on the court if he decided that was what the defense was giving him. The same thing applies to Richard Jefferson and his love of the long 2 pointer that he had to step up to get. He also let Devin Harris taking it to the hoop constantly, although that might not be quite as relevant since Harris played PG. Frank seemed to set up the play, but what players did to finish the play seems to have largely been up to them. He’s not nearly as rigid of a coach as he’d have to be to force Stuckey to keep taking those shots. Stuckey had the ball and he decided he was content to keep taking those shots.

          • Dec 7, 20135:18 pm
            by frankie d

            clearly, frank set stuckey up to shoot 3′s last year.  that was part of their offensive structure.
            stuckey’s PT is always going to be tied to the coach allowing him onto the court.  if stuckey directly goes against the coach’s wishes – to have him shoot that corner 3 – i think there was a very good chance that stuckey would have found himself with a seat on the bench for long stretches.
            sometimes coaches want the player to take that shot even if they may not make it, in order to maintain proper spacing.  i just don’t see how stuckey can be faulted for following coaches orders, no matter how little sense they made.

          • Dec 7, 20138:02 pm
            by oats

            What evidence is there that Frank is telling the the guy to shoot even if he is missing, other than the fact that a guy that was mailing in the season was taking that shot a missing a lot? Frank has a pretty long history as a coach, and he has zero history of benching guys for playing to their strengths. He put Stuckey in a spot that that would be more beneficial to a shooter, but that doesn’t mean he was actually telling Stuckey to take that shot or get benched. Frank’s history and pretty much everything he ever said suggests that he is pretty lenient when it comes to how guys finish the play.
             
            Look, I’m not say that Frank shouldn’t get any blame. He clearly wasn’t using Stuckey well. That said, let’s not pretend like Stuckey was working hard and doing everything that he was asked to do. Stuckey deserves a fair share of the blame too. His effort was lacking, his defense was bad, and he was far to content to settle for bad shots. That’s really all I’ve been saying this whole time. Stuckey fans are making way too many excuses for the guy. Guys don’t fall apart that completely without being partially responsible for it themselves.

  • Dec 6, 201311:34 pm
    by Max

    Reply

    Look, guys.  Stuckey is human.   Haven’t you ever heard that players play better and give more effort on defense when the offense is going well.   Don’t you think a player needs proper motivation, good health and spirit to play their best?  
    After the Pistons drafted Brandon Knight, Stuckey, “the former savior of the franchise” was rudely shoved aside to put the ball in the hands of a vastly inferior point guard and asked to play a thankless role by a coach who clearly had no understanding of his strengths and weaknesses.   Surely this undermined Stuckey and just as surely he understood the Pistons would have been much better if he had been left in his role and Knight had come off the bench.   This had to be incredibly frustrating.  Further, he had health problems. 
    To then use this one bad year to create a pattern throughout his career of being some kind of malcontent who only tries his best when it’s a contract year is ludicrous and yes a flagrant case of cynicism and maybe even sophistry at its worst.   If any of this is true, ask yourself why Stuckey acted like a leader after signing his last contract by organizing the players during the summer to gear up for the next season. He put in an unusual and unprecedented, for him, amount of hard work in that summer but wound up getting hurt very early–I think it was during the preseason–and never gained much traction when he came back.   He probably felt discarded by Frank but still tried to find a way to make it work when he approached Frank to come off the bench.   That is not the action of a me first player and it was a major adjustment for him.  It was just a bad year and to make the argument that he is now playing better because it’s a contract year basically defines his entire career in terms of his one bad year when it was only a hiccup with readily discernible causes.  
     

  • Dec 6, 201311:39 pm
    by Max

    Reply

    BTW: Has anyone else realized that if the playoffs started today that the Pistons would have home court advantage in the first round? 

  • Dec 6, 201311:46 pm
    by tiko

    Reply

    Do you guys think this is fair for both sides?
    Stuckey, CV, Bynum, Singler, Mitchell, future 1st, future 2nds 
    for
    Afflalo, Nelson, Big Baby

    • Dec 6, 201311:53 pm
      by Jacob

      Reply

      Why though?
       

    • Dec 6, 201311:53 pm
      by Max

      Reply

      Good trade for Detroit although I’d be leery of giving up more draft picks and would prefer to at least keep Singler if they are giving up picks.    As for Orlando, maybe it’s fair if they are just trying to acquire more picks and cap space but it’s not a good trade for them unless that’s all they thinking about and are still thinking in terms of tanking.  

  • Dec 7, 201312:20 am
    by Gordbrown

    Reply

    Made my case in a thread down wind but Max’s argument is persuasive and follows the evidence. Other arguments strike me as taking the narrative and trying to find evidence that fits the narrative. Everyone was frustrated with Stuckey last year. But clearly and for whatever reason he was told that his time on the floor was tied to his ability to hit threes. You can say that this was insane and I’m sure (as I keep pointing out) Mr. J Kidd would probably agree with you at this point. I’ve said before but I’ll say again: I can understand Stuckey hate to a point. But the bigger narrative is that Stuckey was the best player on teams that were very bad (guards that couldn’t shoot and bigs that couldn’t catch the damn ball). So it only makes sense to blame the best player for everything that ails the team, right? Until you look at this logically and say: hey perhaps changing out Jason Maxiell for someone who can play basketball at this level will improve the team more. Losing sucks, but lets not let the emotions of that cloud our collective judgement as we analyze what is happening.

  • Dec 7, 20134:20 am
    by domnick

    Reply

    trading stuck now is just not a good option…
    id say keep him  and wait for the trade deadline… evaluate the win loss record..
    if we can get a good value player in return then.. its a good trade..

  • Dec 7, 20137:05 am
    by OOtis

    Reply

    It’s important to note that a lot of his early game success is against second stringers – good for confidence.  I like the way he’s being used, for a change.
    Also, those pick and rolls with Monroe are awesome!  They’re both keepers!

  • Dec 7, 201312:37 pm
    by pistons moribund

    Reply

    Lithium is the answer.  Moody SOB need some lithium or methadone.  Can someone please lend me their rose tinted glasses, never got around to fix mine after they broke about five years ago.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here