# Fisher signs deal with Thunder



## ceejaynj (Oct 9, 2005)

He is now in a position to get that sixth title!

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/...eal-los-angeles-lakers-houston-rockets-032112


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Apparently he'll be in uniform tonight against the Clippers.


----------



## Wilmatic2 (Oct 30, 2005)

Good move for Fish. I guess we'll be seeing him in the playoffs if destiny allows.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

he's in position to be disappointed some more is all not to get a damn 6th ring.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Great move by OKC. He will be a very good influence in the locker room on that young team. Him talking to the team in the 4th qtr of a tight playoff game could make a huge difference.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Fisher needs to retire its sad when players don't know when the ende is upon them . Its quite stunning that he's had a 16 year career and even more incredible he's been a starter for as long as he's been. But the gig is up he can still hit a big shot every now and then. But he's done.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jazzy1 said:


> Fisher needs to retire its sad when players don't know when the ende is upon them . Its quite stunning that he's had a 16 year career and even more incredible he's been a starter for as long as he's been. But the gig is up he can still hit a big shot every now and then. But he's done.


So OKC wants him for leadership and to hit a big shot or two in the playoffs as a bench player..... so what exactly is the problem here?


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

The thing about Fisher in OKC is, he isn't going to be playing when he is at his best. . . the end of games. Fish's best attribute as a player is his ability to make huge plays in the clutch. Are you telling me they are going to have him in instead of Westbrook? Is he going to play the 2 to close out games? 

He is going to be a veteran backup and a locker room player-coach with boatloads of playoff and championship experience. There is still value in that, especially to team like the Thunder who really have neither.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> So OKC wants him for leadership and to hit a big shot or two in the playoffs as a bench player..... so what exactly is the problem here?


He's not gonna be there in to hit the big shot unless Westbrook is in foul trouble and the leadership thing is very nebluous thing does he garner the respect in that orgaization as he did in this one. 

I love what Fisher did for the Lakers but he's not here anymore in part because he was playing pathetically. 

Players get old it happens he's gotten 2 more years probably than was warranted based on merit. 

I don't think you can translate leadership to a team when you aren't a relevant player to the team. 

I rememember Mitch Richmond here. He was just a guy.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

elcap15 said:


> The thing about Fisher in OKC is, he isn't going to be playing when he is at his best. . . the end of games. Fish's best attribute as a player is his ability to make huge plays in the clutch. Are you telling me they are going to have him in instead of Westbrook? Is he going to play the 2 to close out games?
> 
> He is going to be a veteran backup and a locker room player-coach with boatloads of playoff and championship experience. There is still value in that, especially to team like the Thunder who really have neither.


That's exactly what I've argued with people. He wasn't brought in to play basketball, he was brought in as a leader and locker room guy.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

come on man why suit him up then. They have coaches that are paid nicely to help lead the team. thats ridiculous the value in him talking to dudes in the lockeroom. He was a Lakers leaders because he was playing and starting. as a bench scrub he'd get tuned the hell out. Not everyone is amenable to alleged leadership coming from a dude they don't know because of his resume.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jazzy1 said:


> come on man why suit him up then. They have coaches that are paid nicely to help lead the team. thats ridiculous the value in him talking to dudes in the lockeroom. He was a Lakers leaders because he was playing and starting. as a bench scrub he'd get tuned the hell out. Not everyone is amenable to alleged leadership coming from a dude they don't know because of his resume.


Ignorant. The guy is a proven winner and was obviously respected enough to be picked as the head of the PA. 

You and a few others keep acting like they're wasting a roster spot on him (they're not), or act like there were some sort of great players they could have chosen over him (there wasnt).

The didn't make a move for a PG just days before at the trade deadline. Ask yourself why. The answers simple, they didn't see a big enough need. They could have had a guy of Fishers talent or better for a 2nd rounder. 

He became available, and they like the leadership he brings to the table. That's why the signed him. 

Its honestly very simple man.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

Like I said before, Fisher is not a good player, but neither is Reggie Jackson. So what is the harm for the Thunder?

The one thing I wonder about is how often they will play him come playoff time. Obviously Westbrook will get big minutes, but will they be tempted to play Fish at the end of close games?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I doubt it. Westbrook is one of the best scorers in the game, and its not like Fisher is a better defender at this point, so I can't see a reason to. The only reason you'd try it is if OKC starts to meltdown in the 4th and they need to try something to calm them down. The chance of Fish hitting a big 3 isn't worth taking Westbrook out of the game.


----------



## Wilt_The_Stilt (Jun 7, 2002)

I was thinking more in terms of a last play scenario. Wouldn't necessarily have to take Westbrook out. Do they stick him in there even if he has only played a few minutes?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Maybe you throw him in there over Harden if he hasn't played well, but otherwise I'd have to say no.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

last play scenario? that's easy (first let me say that we can assume we're talking about offense because I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason to put him in on D)

if you are looking for a shot you go small and everybody slides over one position - you leave Ibaka or Perkins in at the 5 let the 6'10" Durant play the 4 and dare most any team to try and cover him with a PF which then creates a chain of mismatches and winds up most likely with mr 0.04 waiting somewhere with not a lot of attention on him because where's the double coming from? Harden? Westbrook? I'm sure that would be cool with Brooks


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

e-monk said:


> last play scenario? that's easy (first let me say that we can assume we're talking about offense because I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason to put him in on D)
> 
> if you are looking for a shot you go small and everybody slides over one position - you leave Ibaka or Perkins in at the 5 let the 6'10" Durant play the 4 and dare most any team to try and cover him with a PF which then creates a chain of mismatches and winds up most likely with mr 0.04 waiting somewhere with not a lot of attention on him because where's the double coming from? Harden? Westbrook? I'm sure that would be cool with Brooks


Yea, makes sense.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Ignorant. The guy is a proven winner and was obviously respected enough to be picked as the head of the PA.
> 
> You and a few others keep acting like they're wasting a roster spot on him (they're not), or act like there were some sort of great players they could have chosen over him (there wasnt).
> 
> ...


ignorant is correlating being picked as head of the PA with actual basketball effectiveness. thats ignorant. 

I'm just suggesting that Fisher has very little left in the tank. Playing in close games with Kobe whom he has played with forever is different than playing with Westbrook and KD 2 players he doesn't really know.

Kobe knows where Fisher is gonna be in the cluch he can throw a blind pass in an area and still hit Fisher. 

Is he gonna have that sorta Synergy with the Thunder. 

why would they throw him out there in the clutch with a lack of familiarity. 

Things like that do matter in the nba ,chemistry , shared experiences. Shit isn't magic.

Not saying they wasted their roster spot but to act like this is a huge boon is ridiculous. it might help some but I wouldn't count on much.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

e-monk said:


> last play scenario? that's easy (first let me say that we can assume we're talking about offense because I'm hard pressed to come up with a reason to put him in on D)
> 
> if you are looking for a shot you go small and everybody slides over one position - you leave Ibaka or Perkins in at the 5 let the 6'10" Durant play the 4 and dare most any team to try and cover him with a PF which then creates a chain of mismatches and winds up most likely with mr 0.04 waiting somewhere with not a lot of attention on him because where's the double coming from? Harden? Westbrook? I'm sure that would be cool with Brooks


let me paint a scenario same subs in the game. 

KD has a mismatch for some reason the other team doesn't call timeout which they would never do and match the small line up but they play their bigs LOL Kd beats his guy the defense collapses and he throws it to the right of the key but because he doesn't know Fisher's tendancies Fisher slides over into the corner and he throws it outta bounds everyone has the my bad look on their face.

and the Lakers run off the court laughing at the Thunder who have given the Lakers the series edge on such a collosal foul up.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jazzy1 said:


> ignorant is correlating being picked as head of the PA with actual basketball effectiveness. thats ignorant.
> 
> I'm just suggesting that Fisher has very little left in the tank. Playing in close games with Kobe whom he has played with forever is different than playing with Westbrook and KD 2 players he doesn't really know.
> 
> ...


We've been saying the signing was mainly for leadership and a locker room presence.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

what is lockeroom presence and how does that aid a team like OKC.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

jazzy1 said:


> what is lockeroom presence and how does that aid a team like OKC.


Is this a joke?


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

Jazzy, I totally side with R-Star on this one. Veteran leadership in the NBA means something and Fisher doesnt have to be on the court to provide that. When the Lakers are/were down by 10+ late in a playoff game(Hou comes to mind) it will be Derek Fisher calming the troops. Derek Fisher has been in some of the more dire circumstances in playoff games and came out victorious. They will have to buy in to what he says because he lived it and did it.

Derek Fisher is the Sherpa, Durant and Westbrook are the climbers


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Yep.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

DaRizzle said:


> Jazzy, I totally side with R-Star on this one. Veteran leadership in the NBA means something and Fisher doesnt have to be on the court to provide that. When the Lakers are/were down by 10+ late in a playoff game(Hou comes to mind) it will be Derek Fisher calming the troops. Derek Fisher has been in some of the more dire circumstances in playoff games and came out victorious. They will have to buy in to what he says because he lived it and did it.
> 
> Derek Fisher is the Sherpa, Durant and Westbrook are the climbers


again not sure I buy this esoteric thing called lockeroom presence and leadership nor do I give Fisher too much undo credit for it when Kobe an alltime great player and Phil jackson an alltime great coach are in those huddles. 

veteran leadership is a funny thing I've played hoops at the highest level and haven't really seen alot of instances where it travels to differet organizations without the performance on the court to match. 

There is no osmuosis here he can't just give them something they don't have because he went through it. 

I love what Dfish did in the context of who the Lakers are. But some new guy saying look at my rings listen you are ****ing up Westbrook isn't gonna fly in my estimation all that much. What is Fisher gonna give that Mo Cheeks sitting right there all season has not given them. 

I buy he could possible hit a big shot, make some clutch free throws in a game but to me neither is gonna be in abundance and why am I the only one who doesn't remember Lakers fans just 2 weeks ago cursing the very ground Fisher had walked on. 

He's the same old guy who can't guard anyone, play make or make shots. but because he's with a young OKC team he's gonna be this big asset in their lockeroom when they are already 1st in the west. 

ok :lol:


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You played basketball in the NBA?


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

jazzy1 said:


> let me paint a scenario same subs in the game.
> 
> KD has a mismatch for some reason the other team doesn't call timeout which they would never do and match the small line up but they play their bigs LOL Kd beats his guy the defense collapses and he throws it to the right of the key but because he doesn't know Fisher's tendancies Fisher slides over into the corner and he throws it outta bounds everyone has the my bad look on their face.


passing in basketball is not like being a quarterback you do realize that right? you're not working with timing and tendency all that much, you're not leading a guy - if a dude is standing there wide open he's standing there wide open

and it would be much better for the thunder if that guy is fisher than if its jackson

(and it's not like any of this knowing a guy's tendencies thing takes much time anyway by the time Durant is making your hypothetical play he and Fisher will have played like 30+ games together)


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

R-Star said:


> You played basketball in the NBA?


plus he knows more than Sam Presti does about player evaluation


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

jazzy1 said:


> veteran leadership is a funny thing I've played hoops at the highest level and haven't really seen alot of instances where it travels to differet organizations without the performance on the court to match.


Dude....unless its the NBA then yes veteran leadership doesnt mean shit. Unless you were in the NBA your experience cant relate. Ill assume for a second you played D-1 hoops....so your "veteran" on the team was a senior in college....yeah, thats not veteran leadership, thats a kid in college.

Your situation doesnt relate unless you blow our minds and tell us you played in the NBA. Kwame Brown is that you??? :lol:


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

"Jazzy1"....omg...i just realized....Wayman Tisdale is that you???


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

I think it's Pat Riley


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Isaiah Rider.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

bump


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

R-Star said:


> That's exactly what I've argued with people. He wasn't brought in to play basketball, he was brought in as a leader and locker room guy.


Chalk this one up on the "R-Star has no idea what he's talking about" column.


----------



## e-monk (Sep 10, 2010)

btw were there a few times during that thunder series where we were up double digits and a timely 3 would have changed the course of the game? yeah

and instead did a wide open guy doink up a brick? yeah

at those times did the shadow of the thought "man if that had been fish...." cross my mind? yeah


----------



## elcap15 (Aug 8, 2006)

Since we got absolutely nothing out of Sessions this post season, Fish would have been an improvement.


----------

