My friend and I are having a discussion about whether or not the Lakers would be better off with Kidd instead of Fisher. My reasoning is that Kidd has court vision and can help Bynum and Gasol get easier shots. Kidd has a higher 3pt percentage, less turnovers, more assists, more rebounds, and plays better defense (based on basketball-reference.com's defensive ratings). I'm trying to add a poll but I might not be doing it right.
Without salaries being a factor, obviously Kidd With salaries the last 2 years, Fisher. Kidd making 20 mill per year, you would have to either pay a lot of luxury tax, or give up too much.
Was your friend taking salary into consideration? or was he talking purely from a skills point of view?
Skills. No mention of salary what so ever. The origins of the conversation was me noticing how bad Fisher was playing last night in the 1st quarter. That's when I said Lakers needed Kidd because Fisher was too much of a liability at the point.
I think you could have argued Fisher before just because of the triangle system being a better fit with Fish. However, Kidd has learned to hit a 3 in the last two seasons (WTF took him so long?) and for that reason alone I say there's zero possible way you could imagine Fish being a better fit.
Kidd. No disrespect to Fish, but we don't need our PG jacking up bricks and driving to the lane only to get blocked... Kidd's passing is exact addition we need to complete the team.