Joined
·
5,077 Posts
Does Ron Mercer really stink that bad?
I know that the Bulls were glad to get rid of him, but it's interesting how thin we are at SG now that we don't have him anymore.
Thin isn't exactly the word, seeing all the backcourt players we have. Inexperienced.
Ron Mercer plays hard, scores well, and although he's begun hoisting shots as of late in his career (what do you expect when he's the main gunner on the Bulls), he can be good for a decent FG percentage. His supposedly subpar defense got 2.36 steals in December last year, and he averaged 2nd in steals among rookies his rookie year.
15.2 ppg, 44.1% FG, 2.3 rbs, .65 stls, 2.26 assists per game. Oh wait, those aren't Ron Mercer's numbers. Those are the numbers of the $100 million man, the All-Star, Allan Houston, in his first five years of basketball. (I know, no one likes Houston either, but still...)
17.1 ppg, 43.9% FG, 3.7 rbs, 1.38 stls, 2.56 assists per game. Oh THOSE are Ron Mercer's numbers... better than Houston in almost every aspect of the game, in the first four years of his career, playing for FOUR different teams (it's harder to get assists with teammates you don't play with for more than six months). The only advantage that Houston held over Mercer, at that point in their careers, was range on his shot. Houston shot exceptionally from behind the arc, while Mercer didn't try too often. Houston averages a career 40.1% 3point, while Mercer averages 25.7 %, over only 214 career attempts.
So other than the fact that he doesn't have the range (at least he doesn't hoist too many from behind the arc), why does he get bounced around the league like that? Does a three point shot make Houston the man of the Knicks while Mercer is trade scum? Does one post-season flash of Houston during a miracle lockout playoff for the Knicks make him worth so much more?
And WHY the freak would the Bulls trade Oakley instead of Mercer? Ron Mercer was a very coachable player, and he enjoyed being on the Bulls... it wouldn't have taken much convincing to get him to limit his FG attempts and play into a system more oriented to the big men... and he was showing improvement on his 3 point range too...
Then the roster would look like:
Jay Williams/Craw
Mercer/Hassell/Mason
Rose/Robinson
Chandler/Fizer
Curry/Bags
This is a STACKED team. Seriously it is. As long as you can be a believer in Mercer like I always was, then you could see how well this team could do. Even if you want Craw to get starting SG minutes and Hassell to contribute, then just shift Robinson further down the bench and let Mercer play 6th man behind Rose and only spot minutes at SG.
It all depends on what kind of FA we add this summer, but honestly, having money to spend this summer isn't really all that attractive with the weak FA pool out there. I'd rather have Mercer here with his contract and let the team grow. I think all the pieces are together and we don't need to save up a ton of money to pay a big time FA to come play for us. Mercer isn't really overpaid at 6.1 mil a year, when he can shoot the ball and warrant real minutes unlike Oakley, who "tutored" the big men and got paid 6.5 mil for it. And he's a FA in 2004, which is relatively soon and certainly before all the young guys need extensions...
I am open to attacks at this time. I know there are a lot of Mercer haters out there, but please tell me why sending Oakley away in the trade wouldn't have been better than sending Mercer.
I know that the Bulls were glad to get rid of him, but it's interesting how thin we are at SG now that we don't have him anymore.
Thin isn't exactly the word, seeing all the backcourt players we have. Inexperienced.
Ron Mercer plays hard, scores well, and although he's begun hoisting shots as of late in his career (what do you expect when he's the main gunner on the Bulls), he can be good for a decent FG percentage. His supposedly subpar defense got 2.36 steals in December last year, and he averaged 2nd in steals among rookies his rookie year.
15.2 ppg, 44.1% FG, 2.3 rbs, .65 stls, 2.26 assists per game. Oh wait, those aren't Ron Mercer's numbers. Those are the numbers of the $100 million man, the All-Star, Allan Houston, in his first five years of basketball. (I know, no one likes Houston either, but still...)
17.1 ppg, 43.9% FG, 3.7 rbs, 1.38 stls, 2.56 assists per game. Oh THOSE are Ron Mercer's numbers... better than Houston in almost every aspect of the game, in the first four years of his career, playing for FOUR different teams (it's harder to get assists with teammates you don't play with for more than six months). The only advantage that Houston held over Mercer, at that point in their careers, was range on his shot. Houston shot exceptionally from behind the arc, while Mercer didn't try too often. Houston averages a career 40.1% 3point, while Mercer averages 25.7 %, over only 214 career attempts.
So other than the fact that he doesn't have the range (at least he doesn't hoist too many from behind the arc), why does he get bounced around the league like that? Does a three point shot make Houston the man of the Knicks while Mercer is trade scum? Does one post-season flash of Houston during a miracle lockout playoff for the Knicks make him worth so much more?
And WHY the freak would the Bulls trade Oakley instead of Mercer? Ron Mercer was a very coachable player, and he enjoyed being on the Bulls... it wouldn't have taken much convincing to get him to limit his FG attempts and play into a system more oriented to the big men... and he was showing improvement on his 3 point range too...
Then the roster would look like:
Jay Williams/Craw
Mercer/Hassell/Mason
Rose/Robinson
Chandler/Fizer
Curry/Bags
This is a STACKED team. Seriously it is. As long as you can be a believer in Mercer like I always was, then you could see how well this team could do. Even if you want Craw to get starting SG minutes and Hassell to contribute, then just shift Robinson further down the bench and let Mercer play 6th man behind Rose and only spot minutes at SG.
It all depends on what kind of FA we add this summer, but honestly, having money to spend this summer isn't really all that attractive with the weak FA pool out there. I'd rather have Mercer here with his contract and let the team grow. I think all the pieces are together and we don't need to save up a ton of money to pay a big time FA to come play for us. Mercer isn't really overpaid at 6.1 mil a year, when he can shoot the ball and warrant real minutes unlike Oakley, who "tutored" the big men and got paid 6.5 mil for it. And he's a FA in 2004, which is relatively soon and certainly before all the young guys need extensions...
I am open to attacks at this time. I know there are a lot of Mercer haters out there, but please tell me why sending Oakley away in the trade wouldn't have been better than sending Mercer.