Stuckey re-signs for 3 years / $25m

Then why sign him if you feel the contract is too big?

What reasons did Stuckey not play well? He says coaching...what do you say?

Thanks though for offering a wins prediction though....

I feel that improvement in talent and team chemistry and coaching always result in more victoris.......

Oops, forgot about the 65 season schedule - 24 wins +/- 8 would be my prediction.

Edit:

I wouldn't have signed him for that contract. I was only objecting to your logic at only looking at the next seasons win-loss record when judging a move.

Thank-you

you certainly don't have to agree with my logic. at least my wife does

There are many other factors involved in the win/loss record of a team than one player. It would be difficult for ANY player to improve a team from one year to the next when the roster/coaching staff/etc are declining around them. This does not just apply to Stuckey.

Nice job on the signing, Joe. Now it's time to work on the trade part!

ok, here's my question - could we have used the Stuckey money on another player, like Dalembert or Humphries? If so, why is JoeD still the GM? If not, I am not happy, but not that upset (although I still think Stuckey wouldn't have been able to find a team that would pay him as much as Detroit does now).

Don't we have an awful lot of SGs on this team now? Are any of them tradeable? Why keep Stuckey around when he didn't turn out as the next great PG? Wow, Joe thought Stuckey was so great he put Hamilton and Iverson on the bench but Stuckey didn't turn into anything worth all that. I can't even believe he got that much money and that many years. I would way way rather have Crawford or lots of other worthy bench players in the league than Super Collider. Stuckey is a nobody. Taking up room on the roster and yeah did I mention we have several SG's in waiting all ready?

Market value contract. Doesn't help the team though. Stuckey still lacks a position and probably is best suited to be the first guard off the bench or play with a great PG.

As far as how the signing helps this team, it doesn't. A lateral move like the Prince signing. Essentially this team is going nowhere.

Just as expected. Not too high and not too low. The years gives everyone options and it will be interesting to see how Stuckey's attitude developes.

Saw game on TV last night. Not much change. Not a go-to fellow in the bunch. Knight looked good and his style is upbeat speed and athleticism. Trades have to be made.

I'm open minded that our 4 guard combination will be adequate.

We just paid $25M to renounce Rip Hamilton (scoring leader for the last decade), so why wouldn't we pay $8M/year for the guy who made Billups expendable? Seems like pocket change.

Dumars is obsessed with guards like Kurt Rambis is obsessed with 7 footers. Judgment is clouded.

We actually only have one true SG on the roster after dumping Rip, but we do have a bunch of other players who can and will play the SG spot too.

You know that Rip was tossed right? The only "real" 2 on the roster is Gordon, and that guy couldn't guard a 2 if his bank account depended on it. Same with Daye. Stuckey @ 8 per year may be over payed, but he's better than anything else we've got, and it's only 3 years (which is LOW, and good for us).

It will be exciting to see how our guards will handle opposing teams with big guards. No matter how we mix Stuckey, Gordon, Bynum and Knight we'll be in trouble and I have no confidence at all in Dayes ability to defend guards.

Aside from DWade - who's unguardable - (or LeBron at the same position), there isn't a SG in the league Stuckey cannot guard. Lumping Stuckey in with Bynum and Gordon, as if they had the same defensive shortcomings or same height or whatever, just isn't accurate. Same thing for Knight - that kid has very good PG size and length, the great speed and agility, but not the strength yet, to guard PG's in this league.

This is a very good signing if it's the first step to trading away Bynum.

Overall it's a reasonable contract, par with the market, and the fact that it's only 3 years and not 5 is encouraging.

Why?????? Whyyyyyyy?????

This is ridiculous...more than $8M per? crap....crap....mega crap ©Spiderman.

The cycle of rewarding bad attitude and marginal play continues. More PG who doesn't 'run the point' and SG who can't shoot. Awesome.

in Detroit - you have to pay - there is no "incetives" - juicy commerial deals, shot at the title, or simply city full celebrities. Dumars only has contracts for luring. Sad but true. So far the worst contract is Bengo's - he has a lot to prove. The rest of are reasonable.

"get him cheap" is possible in miami, boston or LA.

We are setting ourselves up to have a disgruntled guard again. Neither Knight, Stuckey, or Gordon will want to come off of the bench this year, but one of them will end up doing it. It should be Gordon, which again proves how over market his contract is. $12M bench player by design?

I agree TaShawn. Without BenGo's contract, Stuckey would be the highest paid Piston, and having your "best" and "largest" contract be $8 million / yr is reasonable. Plus the length is a real palatable number. Imagine the flexibility we would have without that vaunted 2009 Free Agent coup d'etat. Also, I am not a cap guy, but since we really are locked in (assuming there is a Gores m,andated non-amnesty rule) then there was really no incentive to not sign Stuckey. This year was a wash anyways so it is those last 2-years that may be unmanageable, but as long as he doesn't regress (I don't see it happening) then the salary number is tradeable. I put Stuckey (18PER last year) at around 6-8 million / yr and he got his 8, but not the 5 years so we can't kill Joe completely.