Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: 2012 Budweiser Shootout Entry List Released

Dunleavy Interview On SportsHubLA

Check out Brian Kamenetsky's interview with MDsr on SportsHubLA.  It's one of the more in depth Clipper interviews I've ever seen.  

There's nothing really earth-shattering.  Nothing that we hadn't really surmised already.  It's been a tough year.  Lots of injuries.  He thinks the team can compete if they're healthy.  Like I said, not much we didn't really already know.

There was this one interesting quote:

We don't have any bad contracts, from our standpoint. You can look around this league, and you can look at teams and say, "Wow, that's a bad contract, that's a bad contract, that's a bad contract." I don't think we have any bad contracts.

I guess that kind of depends on your definition of bad contracts.  I don't really see anyone lining up to trade for Cat Mobley and his two years and $18.5M, or Tim Thomas and his 2/$12.5M.  But those aren't Jerome James, Troy Murphy, Kenyon Martin bad.  So it's all relative, I suppose.

But about the only surprise in the interview had to do with Corey Maggette.

...the fact is that we want them (Brand and Maggette). Obviously nothing is for certain, but I think (with) percentages, if you said to me I had to place a bet today, I'd place the bet saying they'd both be back.

I've certainly always assumed Brand would be back, and have said as much.  There are lots of reasons for that, the most obvious one being money.  But if MDsr is being genuine with his 'bet' as regards Maggette (and of course, there are lots of reasons that he might dissemble here), that's pretty significant.  He knows the contract that Corey turned down last summer, and he knows that Corey is going to be asking for more than that, especially considering the year he has had.  (Whether or not Corey is 'worth' that is beside the point - he will obviously ask for it.)  To say that he thinks Corey will be back is saying a lot.

Of course, given the fact that Corey is a Donald Sterling favorite and that Maggette would have been traded several times already were it not for the intervention of the owner, MDsr no doubt has a confidence level that the money will be there  - which has not often been the case for the Clippers.  And for the coach, having Maggette gives him another weapon, and doesn't preclude signing a free agent with the mid-level exception, and of course there's also that lottery pick.  So why wouldn't MDsr want to have him, to add to his suddenly full cupboard?  But just because you CAN sign a player doesn't necessarily mean you SHOULD sign him.

Kevin at ClipperBlog has pointed out that Maggette's presence could have an impact on Thornton's ongoing development.  It's not just that Thornton is a much cheaper alternative for the next 3 seasons - the two of them simply play the same position, and they both will want and need a lot of minutes.  Could Maggette start at the shooting guard with Thornton at the small forward?  Sure, but it's certainly not his ideal position, particularly on defense.

Still, if the owner is willing to pony up, it may make sense to keep Maggette in LA.  The simple fact is that he is significantly more productive than either Cat Mobley or Tim Thomas, both of whom are signed for two more seasons.  My point is, if we're worried about the cap number, it's this off-season (where the Clippers don't seem poised to do anything big, with or without Maggette), and next off-season, at which point Mobley and Thomas will both be entering the last year of their contracts, making them viable trade bait.  How long would you sign Corey?  That's the big question, of course - more important even than the starting salary.  But he's still only 28, so he should have some prime years left in him.  He'll no doubt be looking for a five year deal at least.  If the Clippers can get him to sign for anything less than that, it would make a lot of sense to keep him.

Before reading this interview, I was of the opinion that the most likely scenario was a sign and trade for a proven guard.  And no doubt the Clippers will explore possibilities with Gilbert Arenas (likely to opt out) and Michael Redd (the Bucks are ready for big changes).  But that sort of home run seems unlikely to say the least.  So maybe MDsr is right, and he'll be here next season.  But, me, I still wouldn't bet on it.

Comment 17 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Any insight into
the possibility of getting BD for GS?

by Lawler's Law on Apr 15, 2008 7:57 PM PDT reply actions  

Baron
I don't actually think Baron is going to opt out, regardless of how mad he might be right now.  Sure, Nellie benched him yesterday for whatever reason, but does he really think he's going to get more latitude anywhere else?  He's a great fit in GS, and he should stay.

If he really does opt out, I'd much rather have him than Gil.  Like Gil, he's an LA guy, so one might suspect that the Clippers would have some appeal.  And given that no one can pay him what he wants straight up, the Clippers combination of decent sized contracts for decent players might be appealing.  If he does opt out, the Clippers should certainly make an offer.

by Steve Perrin on Apr 15, 2008 8:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Tough call
but in the end, I'll take Arenas.  They are both gamers, and both moody, but I feel like Arenas shows up to play every night and Davis doesn't.  

Plus, Gilbert is younger and possesses a bit more star quality.  

Both would be a huge upgrade.  Will be an interesting summer.

by mp on Apr 16, 2008 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Good Topic
Davis and Arenas could keep us going for a few days around here.  Very rich topics.

The BD situation is interesting.  GSW was in a must-win game, but their chances of making the playoffs were still very poor.  So BD in a funk isn't exactly shocking.  Yes, Nellie gives BD a lot of latitude, but they also traded away Richardson, and there are some supporting cast questions.  GSW is a highly entertaining team, and they played great to win a ton of games and almost make the playoffs.  But are they built to bang it out with the teams at the top of the West?  The GSoM guys must have a better idea of how the Warriors should put their team together in the future.  The emergence of Ellis is kind of like the emergence of Kaman:  GSW has a pair of great guards, while the Clippers have a pair of great big men.

Maybe, given the inequities of the Gasol trade and rich get richer NBA world, the Clippers and the Warriors should merge, create one super franchise of two teams, with an A squad that plays 20 games at Staples and 20 games at Oakland, and there could also be a punching bag "rebuilding" team that plays a 20/20 home schedule too.  Brand, Kaman, Davis, Ellis on the A team, Thomas, Mobley, Ross (basically the Clip squad for most of the season) on the B team.  Coaching situation would be interesting too.

Then there's Arenas.  

by citizen zhiv on Apr 16, 2008 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions  

I like how you think
also, i thought that trading Richardson hurt them.  Dumb move.

by mp on Apr 16, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

Chris Palmer from ESPN Mag
has Kaman as Most Improved...and Chad Ford has Andrew Bynum!...funny stuff!

by Lawler's Law on Apr 15, 2008 8:00 PM PDT reply actions  

bynum
how can someone have him as MIP....didnt he play like 33 games all season....like you say funny stuff

by XXDC2XX on Apr 15, 2008 8:13 PM PDT reply actions  

Really pretty decent contract situation
Mobley and Thomas are objectively making a little too much, and Mobley moreso than Thomas.  (Though with that game from Mobley against the Warriors who knows what he might do any given night.)  The tradability (word?) of the contracts isn't in question next year really.

What's sorta brilliant though, is if everyone is extended, after next season those guys combine to make up to a max contract worth of expiring contracts, or they can be sold seperately for what could be very nice pieces.

Aside from the current uncertainty surrounding 42 and 50, as long as EB is extended and good decisions are made concerning Corey and Shaun, the Clippers are actually in a somewhat brilliant contract situation.  The Clippers will be capped out, as they would just about functionally be with just EB/Kaman/Maggette/Thornton, but they have the very thing they might need to be able to improve drastically anyway.  $17MM in expiring contracts right when they need them most.

by John R on Apr 16, 2008 10:04 AM PDT reply actions  

It ain't bad...
What's interesting about today's NBA is that a player only needs to be productive for N-1 years when they sign an N year contract.  The final year he becomes a trade piece, and in some ways, the bigger the contract, the better (hello Kwame).  

By the way, this is what is perhaps most amazing about the Knicks debacle.  The idea that Isiah was shackled with a bad cap situation by Layden is ridiculous - he's continually had the expiring contracts to make deals, and an owner that was willing to go over (and stay over) the luxury tax - he just made atrocious trades.  Like for instance, who knew that Stevie Franchise would be a bad fit with Starbury?  Um, everybody.  You just have to look at the nicknames to know that.

So signing Thomas for 4 years was like signing him for 3 years, and then having him as trade bait.  Cat's not really worth $9M, but when you look at the contract of the guy he replaced on the roster (Bobby Simmons), he looks like a massive bargain.  And he can still play.  So other than a little extra money next season, his contract is not really hurting the team.  

Maggette via S&T (and the lottery pick, if they so choose) is what they have to offer to make trades this summer.  Next summer, it's Thomas/Mobley.  And truthfully, Thomas/Mobley might look OK to some teams in trades even, considering who can become a free agent in 2011 (LBJ, DWade, Kobe...).

by Steve Perrin on Apr 16, 2008 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

Not Kobe...
My bad.  He's 2010 if he opts out, 2012 if he doesn't.

by Steve Perrin on Apr 16, 2008 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

why would
dunleavy admit to having any bad contracts? didn't  he say the organization would be better off  with him running it? since he was involved  in the signing of these bad contracts that would put the responsibility for these contracts back on him. thus showing he should not be solely in charge.

by cars50 on Apr 16, 2008 10:26 AM PDT reply actions  

Yes
The problem is, as I've stated ad nauseum, team management, which includes MDSr.  As long as the team doesn't have competent, professional management, it really doesn't matter whether they have cap room, whether Mobley's contract is bad (it is, not just the amount, but the length), etc.  The fact that they may have some expensive expiring contracts in a couple of years might constitute tradeable assets, but it does not reflect any brilliant decisions by management - rather a byproduct of poor management decisions.

I for one do not have confidence that management will do what needs to be done to get the personnel in here that will help the team win consistently.  I say this despite the fact that management will indeed have some options this summer.

The other problem is the coach.  Even if the team brings in better players, who could conceivably fit within a system, the system itself is broken, and the coach has no idea how to make it work.  

Maybe Sterling will wake up and hire a competent GM who will clean house.  

God it's tough to be a Clipper fan.  

by Jax on Apr 16, 2008 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

I have to disagree, Jax
The contracts have been pretty reasonable, as has the management.  Lets go back in time:

After the hiring of MDSr., the Clippers had a slew of free agents.  They chose to match the contracts on two, Brand (no brainer), and Maggette, at what should be considered a great contract.  The let Odom go on a bad contract.  Andre Miller was a wash.  

The next year, they declined to match on Q Rich's big deal from Phoenix.  I will submit to you that that was a good decision.  They were very close to having Kobe Bryant as well.  I believe they well that offseason.

The following year, they let Bobby Simmons walk on a very bad contract (smart move), and made a good run at Ray Allen, which in hindsight, would have been only a fair contract.  They settled on Cuttino Mobley.  It made sense.  He was coming off a very solid year.  There was a very clear hole at the 2 spot.  And the team seemed to be on the brink, but really needed a solid veteran.  Simmons, Allen and Michael Redd set the bar really high that offseason with some big contracts.  So perhaps they overpaid a bit, but all in all it was a good move, and certainly is not a "no way out" albatross.  At least the guy is somewhat productive.

The following offseason, 2006, there was not a whole lot out there, nor did the Clippers feel like they had any glaring needs.  They resigned Kaman and Cassell, two smart moves.  They felt that they needed a shooter.  It came down to Vlad Rad and Tim Thomas.  I admit that Thomas is an enigma.  He has all of the tools to be great.  In 06 playoffs, he was great, averaging 20 pts.  I think that getting him at 4/$24 was better than Vlad at 5/$30.  

Other areas where management has been good:  the Elton Brand trade, they Wilcox/Radmonovich trade, the Jaric/Cassell trade.  Even the Artest/Maggette trade was pretty smart business wise.  I believe that the Clippers may have reached the Finals with Artest on that 05-06 team.  The team trades quite well.

They do find good talent under the radar.  Bobby Simmons, Q Ross, etc.

Where did they possibly drop the ball.  They obviously struggle drafting (Korolev) unless players fall into their laps.    One could argue that they should have pulled the trigger on the AI trade, but management feels strongly that Livingston is special.  Perhaps they let a good opportunity pass with the Mike Miller trade, though further analysis shows the financial problems with that move.  

Overall I am pleased with the future.  Most of that has to do with the development of Kaman and Thornton this season.  They are both going to be great for the next few years.  The financial situation is good.  

by mp on Apr 16, 2008 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ok
We just have a fundamental disagreement on the competency of management and coaching (which you didn't address).  We can leave it at that.  

A few comments on your points.

Agree with you on Q.  Elgin told me several years ago that they didn't resign Q b/c Q wanted them to waive their requirement that he be subjected to a physical and they suspected that he had back problems.  That was obviosuly a good move.  

Disagree on Cat.  Hard worker, but far too old.  They gave him two more years than anyone else would have.  

Thomas sucks.  A couple of good games with the Suns shouldn't get in the way of a review of his history.  

I would have traded for AI.  I disagree with management on Livingston based on performance and injury history.  

The jury is still out on Thornton.  Which is a problem when he's 25 and you're trying to decide if you should dump Corey for an SG with him replacing Corey.  

Right now they have huge holes at PG and SG that they shouldn't have.  We'll see if they get lucky.  Based on past performance, I doubt it.  

by Jax on Apr 16, 2008 1:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

"The jury is still out on Thornton."
Ok, what are you talking about?  I think you want to believe this so you have convinced yourself of it.  

With Mobley, again, it is not a great contract, but at the time, the Clippers really had to make some sort of move and bring in a vet.  He was a good piece.  I don't think he has set the team back that much financially.  (If you want to argue that he has set them back by soaking up so many minutes during lame duck seasons, I won't argue there).  But I defend the signing of Mobley as a good move that helped change the culture in Clipper-land.

Ok, Thomas does suck when he is asked to start at PF.  But when his role is to play 20 minutes, grab 5 boards and knock down a couple 3's, I think he has been ok.  There are a number of games that his shooting has won for the Clippers.  Not a great move to sign him, but by no means a disaster.  

AI trade.  I would have traded Livingston for AI, too, because I believe in trading potential for a sure thing.  But it is not like it was a complete no-brainer.  Heck, if you believe the blogs, Clippers fans were about 50/50 on the idea at the time.  Hindsight is 20/20.  And had they traded for AI, there would still be a gap at PG, just like there is in Denver right now.  

I know, I know, Rodney Stuckey.   I think they are on the right track.  They will draft a guard this year.  There is some trading potential for some guards.  

by mp on Apr 16, 2008 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

Even so
I think we're discussing how there are all sorts of different contracts.  The point is that there are bad contracts, and there are bad contracts.  The latter being best described as really bad contracts.  There are okay contracts, and there are good contracts, and there are really good contracts.

I would say that Mobley's deal is an okay contract.  They're certainly getting the minutes out of the guy.  He's being paid to be the 5th starter or a solid 6th man, a steady contributor.  

Thomas' deal is a bad contract because Thomas is bad.  But his situation is kind of the same as Mobley's--he would be alright if he was just able to fill the role on the team that he's supposed to.  The difference, for me, is that Mobley is a flexible, consistent, hard-working player.  The fact that Thomas' utility is so specific, makes his contract a bad one.  For the amount of money that the Clips are paying, Thomas should have been able to fill in as for Brand all year as a starting PF, playing at about the level of effectiveness that Mobley did.  Instead his lack of defense, rebounding, and missing 70% of his 3 pt shots was a major liability.

But the pertinent example of a really bad contract for the Clippers is the Kaman situation going into this year.  Kaman 1.0, struggling to score or rebound in double figures while getting paid over 10m a year, was headed toward bad contract land.  Instead, strangely, Kaman's deal is now pretty firmly settled in the good contract category, with the potential to move into the "really good" level after we see him and Brand playing together.

I'm sure some one can come up with some "really bad" contracts.  Those are the ones where someone is getting paid a ton of money who doesn't play or barely contributes.  Dunleavy is right:  the Clippers don't have any of those.

by citizen zhiv on Apr 16, 2008 11:56 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Clips Nation!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Joc_01_small
Stats/Box/Game Log question?
Small
Clippers All Time Leaders in Wins Above (Below) Average
Small
Adjusted Point Differential and Pythagorean Wins
Small
A look at efficiency and point differential
Small
Anyone have a video of DJ's jumper?
Blake_griffin_cropped_small
It was a good day
Small
Poll: April 27th where do you see the Clippers?
Small
40-26 and getting there
Small
Are we showing Mo enough love?
Blake-griffin-dunk_small
JR Smith. Yay or Nay?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Clipsnation_small Steve Perrin

Editors

Joc_01_small John Raffo

Authors

Blake-griffin-dunk_small Lawler's Law