GoldenSTWarriors

[TMC]

Fisher was not my favourite player, nowhere near it! He was however, a solid player that was not real good but effective enough that he made a positive difference for the team. He was a good veteran presence for all the young players on the team and so in the end he did an acceptable job!

I say Derek Fisher was a solid player and not a bad one!

Yeah, I do, too. A pretty stupid contract for a role player... I'd love him for 3 million less per year.

[migya]

Fisher was not my favourite player, nowhere near it! He was however, a solid player that was not real good but effective enough that he made a positive difference for the team. He was a good veteran presence for all the young players on the team and so in the end he did an acceptable job!

I say Derek Fisher was a solid player and not a bad one!

Yeah, I do, too. A pretty stupid contract for a role player... I'd love him for 3 million less per year.

I reckon his contract was what other teams would have given him. Look at it - he was a starter on a 3 straight championships team, he has hit clutch shots and has almost ten years of experience; that will get you 6-8 million a year!

[TMC]

I reckon his contract was what other teams would have given him. Look at it - he was a starter on a 3 straight championships team, he has hit clutch shots and has almost ten years of experience; that will get you 6-8 million a year!

But only the Warriors did... think about that. He was a free agent and picked the biggest offer. Why would anyone (at that time) sign with the Warriors if they weren't overpaying for him?.

He had a lot of suitors, just not at that price.

[migya]

I reckon his contract was what other teams would have given him. Look at it - he was a starter on a 3 straight championships team, he has hit clutch shots and has almost ten years of experience; that will get you 6-8 million a year!

But only the Warriors did... think about that. He was a free agent and picked the biggest offer. Why would anyone (at that time) sign with the Warriors if they weren't overpaying for him?.

He had a lot of suitors, just not at that price.

I reckon he would have had a few teams after him

[TMC]

I reckon he would have had a few teams after him

Yeah, from what I remember, San Antonio and other two teams wanted him... but not at that price.

[JayPat]

Migya, the main problem with his contract is length. Last year, he earned his 6 million, but in a few years, that contract is going to produce nightmares.

[migya]

Migya, the main problem with his contract is length. Last year, he earned his 6 million, but in a few years, that contract is going to produce nightmares.

Not our problem now

[TMC]

Migya, the main problem with his contract is length. Last year, he earned his 6 million, but in a few years, that contract is going to produce nightmares.

Not our problem now

Yeah, it's lenght... it never goes over 7.5 million, but it has for more seasons in it. Fish will be 36 during his last season... and, honestly, I can't see him contributing at that age.

Oh, well, as migya said, not our problem now.

Fisher was not my favourite player, nowhere near it! He was however, a solid player that was not real good but effective enough that he made a positive difference for the team. He was a good veteran presence for all the young players on the team and so in the end he did an acceptable job!

I say Derek Fisher was a solid player and not a bad one!

Yeah, I do, too. A pretty stupid contract for a role player... I'd love him for 3 million less per year.

I reckon his contract was what other teams would have given him. Look at it - he was a starter on a 3 straight championships team, he has hit clutch shots and has almost ten years of experience; that will get you 6-8 million a year!

This is exactly right. The Warriors outbid other teams for Derek Fisher. Think of the "Ben Wallace signing" this offseason... but on a much smaller scale (talent AND money).

[TMC]

This is exactly right. The Warriors outbid other teams for Derek Fisher. Think of the "Ben Wallace signing" this offseason... but on a much smaller scale (talent AND money).

In other words, dumb. Why overpay for someone that isn't that good to begin with?

If you're going to overpay for someone, it better be a star.

Not necessarily. We needed a PG and a veteran. Fisher was a great addition to the Warriors, at the time. We overpaid... according to what Fisher was worth at the time, but we didn't break the bank on him. It's not like we gave him a 4-year, $60 million deal.

[TMC]

Not necessarily. We needed a PG and a veteran. Fisher was a great addition to the Warriors, at the time. We overpaid... according to what Fisher was worth at the time, but we didn't break the bank on him. It's not like we gave him a 4-year, $60 million deal.

Yeah, but, according to my standards, the contract we gave him was dumb and the one you're proposing would be a "fire me" message by any GM. There's a difference.

Overpaying is always dumb. That's why it's called 'over-paying'.

We paid Fisher what we needed to in order to get him on our team. We needed a PG and a veteran; Fish provided both. It's not that crazy to me. In fact, I'd say he over-achieved last year from what we expected out of him.

[TMC]

Overpaying is always dumb. That's why it's called 'over-paying'.

Not if it helps your team get to the next level. I think that the Bulls signing Big Ben (and the way they did it, with only a 4 year contract) is smart overpaying.

[xbay]

Well the way you describe overpaying, all I can say is that he MUST perform up to the money's worth, improve the team, and take em deep in the playoffs. If he doesn't, then you just cost yourself some extra cash to reel in the fish from the FA.