There’s no better replacement for Parsons than Ariza. Period. They were never going to play here together. Ariza probably wouldn’t have signed if he wasn’t going to start, and Parsons was not going to be a happy coming off the bench, being that he feels he’s a franchise player. Great post OP.
I like how people equate TA's contract year to his good shooting. What, so he's taking a shot and goes "I need to get paid next year", so as the ball leaves his fingertips he wills the ball in the net? As long as he hustles and plays decent D, he'll have earned his money. He's going to playing with Howard and Harden and has a legitimate chance at a ring much like his first years in LA. I don't expect he's gonna mope like his years with us, NO, or Washington. He's going to be decent at the very least for us.
They don't, hehe. "Sample size matters, playing well for one year is not the same as playing well for 4 years." and "there isn’t any evidence that players improve their performance significantly in their contract year." are two very different statements. Being concerned about a particular player (sample size of his good play, will he regress), and talking if players as a group improve in contract years, are just two topics with a massive logical gap between them. You can't just jump from one to the other.
Ariza doesn't handle the ball as well, so he is more dependent upon his teammates to get him scoring opportunities. He's also lesser in terms of court vision. He's also had his 2 best years by far during contract seasons, which is a big red flag. Parsons got overpaid, but he is younger, and hasn't shown the inconsistency of Ariza over his career.
You say crazy things sometimes, but I expect better from you than this. You know Ariza's first stint failed because we required him to be a top option. He is NOT a top option and will never be one. Now we are having him as are 4-5th option. Are you honestly unable to see the difference?
There is no argument, in a vacuum you would want Parsons over Ariza. Ariza isn't that much of a downgrade at 4 yr/$32mil if we can add some decent depth around Harden and Howard.
no bc hes blind and a parsons fanboy ariza was being asked to fill the void of tmac's scoring and obviously he cant.. but as a 3rd option expect him to do much of what chandler did.. some things improved
One stat that will blow your mind. (Outside of Ariza's positive 3pt shooting in recent years) In the playoffs Ariza's 3 pt shooting... .442% from the ARC.. Incredible. Ariza has played in big games... and showed up... unlike Parsons. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/arizatr01.html Chandler Parsons... .382 from the arc. http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/parsoch01.html Ariza last year alone had a better RPG in playoffs (8.9) and FT percentage (78%)... I think we actually upgraded the team come playoffs. I agree with Morey's statement earlier this morning.
They do not tell the whole story, but they tell an important part. They show that the shooting is very similar.
3's: Parsons = Ariza (Ariza is slightly better but ill call it equal) Defense: Parsons < Ariza Gluiness: Parsons > Ariza Chick magnet: Parsons > Ariza I can see why so many POF's think Parsons is better than Ariza. Because he is so damn hot looking. If you made Parsons look like Ariza. They would be much more similar players. Chew on that for a bit.
Like I have maintained, this is a lateral move at half the price. Well done Morey. If anything, I'd give the edge to Ariza. Parsons stats were kind of inflated feeding off the attention of Dwight and Harden and playing in an up tempo fas t paced system.
big difference is TA required a pg to help him get his points, when he was here he couldnt go and manufacture his points as well as parsons could. Parson is a better play maker. Shooting wise not to bad in comparison
This. It doesn't make sense that they wanted to keep him long term so they declined the team option but soon after decided not to match the Mavs when they could have.
I agree there will be a drop off at the 3, that's clear, but more importantly, to what extent and in what ways? I think there's enough in Ariza's offense and defense to suggest that there will be a marginal loss in play in many ways, maybe a significant loss in a couple of ways, and significant improvements in some critical ways. It's those critical improvements that lead me to think the difference in contribution from Parsons to Ariza will be marginal, and potentially (hopefully), with Ariza as a better, more appropriate piece on this squad. Don't forget, there may be imminent changes to the squad which may be more tailored to Ariza's presence, not Parsons'. We'll see.
What Parsons does is replaceable. Its regrettable to have lost him for nothing in return, but he isn't elite at any facet of the game. He is a solid role player and you don't pay solid role players 15 million per year...unless you can get your true superstar to take 10 million per year I suppose.
He really didn't do much moping with the Wizards. By the time he got there he'd grown up a lot and ended up as a calming veteran presence on a young team. Maybe he won't be as exciting or sexy as Parsons, but I'm confident he won't start proclaiming he's the best small forward in the series while he's being outplayed.
