smackeddog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:You could see his value last night. Hes in his prime 28 years old he can play in and out--hes powerful and atheltic and he would cost less than half of what Wes Matthews might cost. He might be the best value guard and by a wide margin.

We need serious upgrades in the backcourt if we want to win games. For me Id like to sign Stuckey to a 3-4 year deal and see if I can get Mo Williams on a semi large one year deal--so I can keep my options open the following year.

The team you're trying to construct- I want no part of it, sir! Trying to win free agency in 2016 is a fools errand because nearly every team will have cap space due to the new tv deal bump. If we're still a 20 win team by that point, with no pick, no one will choose to come here when they have so much choice. This year is an unusual year for Stuckey- he's a SG who can't shoot 3s. We need a SG who can hit 3s, and consistently.

Stuckey is perfect here and cheap. He's a pro guard with a LOT of talent and perfect for this system because he can slide to PG penetrate and shoot. He's also physically put together and athetic. I watched both Stuckey and Matthews last night and to me its not a ? mark who is better and at LESS than half the cots. The 3 pt "shot" player whoever pays big money for that is DUMB>!! Kyle Korver makes 6mm thats the max for a 3 point shooter. Let Portland pay Matthews 12mm for his inconsistent play with no dribble penetration.

smackeddog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:You could see his value last night. Hes in his prime 28 years old he can play in and out--hes powerful and atheltic and he would cost less than half of what Wes Matthews might cost. He might be the best value guard and by a wide margin.

We need serious upgrades in the backcourt if we want to win games. For me Id like to sign Stuckey to a 3-4 year deal and see if I can get Mo Williams on a semi large one year deal--so I can keep my options open the following year.

The team you're trying to construct- I want no part of it, sir! Trying to win free agency in 2016 is a fools errand because nearly every team will have cap space due to the new tv deal bump. If we're still a 20 win team by that point, with no pick, no one will choose to come here when they have so much choice. This year is an unusual year for Stuckey- he's a SG who can't shoot 3s. We need a SG who can hit 3s, and consistently.

Stuckey is perfect here and cheap. He's a pro guard with a LOT of talent and perfect for this system because he can slide to PG penetrate and shoot. He's also physically put together and athetic. I watched both Stuckey and Matthews last night and to me its not a ? mark who is better and at LESS than half the cots. The 3 pt "shot" player whoever pays big money for that is DUMB>!! Kyle Korver makes 6mm thats the max for a 3 point shooter. Let Portland pay Matthews 12mm for his inconsistent play with no dribble penetration.

I just don't see what you see in him, other than the fact he's cheap- he doesn't defend well, he doesn't knock down 3s. He scores about 12pts per game. You may as well re-sign Schved. Mathews hits 3s at a good rate, and he's a very good defender. I get the strategy of not spending big money this offseason, I just don't think Stuckey brings anything.

How can you compare Schvyed and Stuckey? Lets bring it up a notch. Stuckey has a chance to bring his game to an 18/20-4-5 level with 35 minutes with his improvement with his jumpshot.

FistOfOakley wrote:stuckey can do 20-4-5 but he'd need 25 shots and 40 minutes to get there...

he's just not starting caliber or someone who should be playing over 25min on a good team...

exactly - that's why his minutes and pts have gone down to those levels.

He's 28 - a known quantity. Sure, there are late bloomers. But he isn't likely to be one.

BRIGGS wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:You could see his value last night. Hes in his prime 28 years old he can play in and out--hes powerful and atheltic and he would cost less than half of what Wes Matthews might cost. He might be the best value guard and by a wide margin.

We need serious upgrades in the backcourt if we want to win games. For me Id like to sign Stuckey to a 3-4 year deal and see if I can get Mo Williams on a semi large one year deal--so I can keep my options open the following year.

The team you're trying to construct- I want no part of it, sir! Trying to win free agency in 2016 is a fools errand because nearly every team will have cap space due to the new tv deal bump. If we're still a 20 win team by that point, with no pick, no one will choose to come here when they have so much choice. This year is an unusual year for Stuckey- he's a SG who can't shoot 3s. We need a SG who can hit 3s, and consistently.

Stuckey is perfect here and cheap. He's a pro guard with a LOT of talent and perfect for this system because he can slide to PG penetrate and shoot. He's also physically put together and athetic. I watched both Stuckey and Matthews last night and to me its not a ? mark who is better and at LESS than half the cots. The 3 pt "shot" player whoever pays big money for that is DUMB>!! Kyle Korver makes 6mm thats the max for a 3 point shooter. Let Portland pay Matthews 12mm for his inconsistent play with no dribble penetration.

If you bring in Stuckey for cheap that's fine, i like big PGs/combo guards, but you better have a knockdown shooter at the other guard position.

BRIGGS wrote:HMM did you watch him play last night--what exactly did you see in his play that doesnt deserve 32-35 minutes? If he had 35 minutes last night he wouldve put up 35. Hes being undervalued. His jumpshot looks INCREDIBLY improved--did you notice the mechanic change on it? Smooth and tight. His entire career hes played at an 18-5-4 per 36 minute level. You start adding in higher %3 pt shooting more space the fact that he is a willing and good passer/rebounder---thats a nice player who also would help us get to the FT line(where we are ranked 30)

he's always been wildy inefficient... he's an ok player... i always thought he would fill something of a reggie jackson role in okc or lou williams in toronto on another contender....

he's an ok player and if we're bringing him off the bench and giving him like 3 mil and not playing him more than 20-25min per game i can see that being an ok combo... but if you're playing him heavy minutes against starters... he starts becoming a drain on both sides of the ball...

BRIGGS wrote:

FistOfOakley wrote:stuckey can do 20-4-5 but he'd need 25 shots and 40 minutes to get there...

he's just not starting caliber or someone who should be playing over 25min on a good team...

HMM did you watch him play last night--what exactly did you see in his play that doesnt deserve 32-35 minutes? If he had 35 minutes last night he wouldve put up 35. Hes being undervalued. His jumpshot looks INCREDIBLY improved--did you notice the mechanic change on it? Smooth and tight. His entire career hes played at an 18-5-4 per 36 minute level. You start adding in higher %3 pt shooting more space the fact that he is a willing and good passer/rebounder---thats a nice player who also would help us get to the FT line(where we are ranked 30)

This is a very big flaw, You are asking people evaluate him based on what he did against the Knicks. That's just silly. Jimmer fredette could go off on the knicks. They can make the below avg super.

Stuckey has had an avg year on a bad team. He will likely continue to get the minimum or slightly above and at that price he would make a nice back up.