Game over for free agency?

by John R on Jul 18, 2008 11:09 AM PDT

While thinking about the situations of Fazekas and Williams, its sorta dawned on me that this may be it.

The buzz can die down.

Barring a change in status for Fazekas, Williams or Azubuike, this is probably your 2008-2009 Clippers.

Davis/Knight
Azubuike/Mobley/Gordon
Thornton/Thomas/Williams
Kaman/Powell
Camby/Fazekas

That rounds out your 12 man rotation. Taylor and Jordan make 14, with a spot left to play with.

So that's it. Everyone can exhale. Seems like they should be done.

Of course everytime we have believed that...

Tweet Comment 17 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Probably..

I think the Taylor spot is still up in the air. But it is reserved for a 3rd string point guard at the NBA minimum regardless. It’s Jared Jordan/Dan Dickau from last season. If nothing ‘better’ comes up (say, Portland decides to waive Sergio Rodriguez after training camp) then the spot belongs to Taylor.

The big question of course is Shaun Livingston. If they can keep him (either for the min, or if they possibly have a little more left after the Azubuike offer) I feel certain that they will. Then they have to decide if they use the 15th spot on him, or if they waive Williams or Taylor to make room.

The Clippers! The (second) Best NBA Team in LA!

by Steve Perrin on Jul 18, 2008 11:17 AM PDT reply actions

Please Come Back Shaun Livingston

Livingston was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the Azubuike signing. He’s too talented to write him off now when his cost is so low. At worst signing him to a one year deal would make him a nice sign and trade chip next year.

Azu should be a fine addition to our team. But if signing Azu keeps us from resigning Livi, we may regret it when Livi’s leading our opposition to the playoffs. He may have been headed out the door anyway, but there still was hope for a return.

by ClipCat on Jul 18, 2008 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Actually

The Clippers won’t have bird rights for 3 more years on Livingston. That’s what happens when you renounce a guy. Therefore, a s&t isn’t possible next off-season with Livingston.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jul 23, 2008 3:38 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm a little onerned that the Warriors will math Azubuike

The salary is pretty low. Given his talent, they could possibly work a sign and trade for a pg . . .

by Jax on Jul 18, 2008 11:27 AM PDT reply actions

The chatter on GSoM

seems to agree with you. The money is not that much and won’t really affect them salary cap-wise. The only thing working in the Clippers favor is that GS would be locking up money on Azu that in theory they could use to sign both Monta and Beidr. Granted $3mil is not that much in the grand scheme of things, but it could be the difference in giving Monte $8.5 or $10mil…just something to think about. For what its worth, I think the W’s will NOT match, and instead focus on signing Ellis and Beidr, and looking for a legit backup pg (Livingston anyone?)

by Clip Show on Jul 18, 2008 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

Luckily, it seems that ship has sailed

Because Azubuike has signed the Clippers offer sheet, the choices seem to be down to the Warriors matching, or no.

So within 7 days he will either be a Warrior or a Clipper.

If the Warriors match, he would be untradeable until 12/15. This isn’t unsurmountable, but if he is your PG bait, I don’t think you want to burn over a month and a half of the season waiting.

Get me BD and 75 and I'm in

by John R on Jul 18, 2008 11:55 AM PDT up reply actions

If true, what's the logic behind preventing teams from matching and signing and trading

by Jax on Jul 18, 2008 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions

Unclear

But one thing that jumps out is control.

In restricted free agency, the player doesn’t have full control of his destiny. He can negotiate a contract, but he doesn’t get a vote in who pays it. This is by design. However, it is only one of two teams. The team he has chosen by signing the offer sheet, or his original team.

In unrestricted free agency, for a sign and trade the player gets a full veto in the process. If he doesn’t want to go to the other team, he doesn’t join the party. This is definitely by design.

A match and trade would seem to defeat part of both. It would be a unique thing within the system.

Then there is all kinds of wiggle room in contract lengh and stuff. An offer sheet can be for as little as 2 seasons, but a S&T contract must be for at least 3.

But my guess is power and control.

Get me BD and 75 and I'm in

by John R on Jul 18, 2008 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Teams wanted that for superstars

So they couldn’t lose them, like Elton Brand for instance. It’s just not working out for Josh Smith, Luol Deng, and Andre Igoudala quite like they were hoping I’m guessing.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. It's simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get tangled, you tango on

by pookeyguru on Jul 23, 2008 3:41 AM PDT up reply actions

Livingston

even though the clips might want him back, I don’t think Livingston does based on the reports I’ve seen (Denver and Phoenix are also interested in him).

by clipFanInSD on Jul 18, 2008 11:29 AM PDT reply actions

If he wants anymore more $$ than the min...

he will go elsewhere. The only leverage the Clips have right now if that if he were to resign with them, they would have his Bird rights, which COULD lead to a HUGE payday down the road for him. He is no where near playing 5 on 5, and I am not sure if teams out there realize this. From all accounts, he probably won’t play this up coming year until the all-star break. Offering more than the min salary is a HUGE risk for a guy who isn’t even playing right now…and hasn’t been able to play for the past 18 or so months….

by Clip Show on Jul 18, 2008 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions

How About Signing KoKo Archibong??

Garbage time would be so much more fun with Archibong, Azubuike and Fazekas all playing together.

by ClipCat on Jul 18, 2008 12:05 PM PDT reply actions

ahh...

where is Manute Bol where you need him :)

by clipFanInSD on Jul 18, 2008 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions

Livingston

I can’t see anyone making a large offer until it is determined what level of recovery will result.

I think offering him his choice of a 1 or 2 year (his choice) with a player option for an additional year. If you have room give a little more then minimum. We also can offer a larger annual increase then anyother team. This way we get him cheap until we see if he can still play. If so, he can decline the additional year and degotiate a large contract with us or another team. If he can’t he take the option and gets a additional year of money. We gamble playing a player who may not be able to play in exchange for a cheap year of service. He takes a low amount with either the chance to hit big afterward or a fall back option of at least another year when he can’t play. If is win-win for both sides.

by HT on Jul 18, 2008 12:44 PM PDT reply actions

Livingston will probably not re-sign

I’m sure there will be some teams that are desperate for a PG, but i’m not sure he will pass any team’s physicals at this point. Then again, teams can take a risk with him as a 15th player.

I love LAC.

by oasisman on Jul 18, 2008 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions

bigger raises...

I don’t think we can do it. We already renounced his rights, which puts us on the same footing as every other team that wants to sign him. It basically comes down to whether there’s a demand for him and how much he wants to stay with LA.

by gfngfgf on Jul 18, 2008 8:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Yeah...

...judging by Dunleavy’s comments on the radio, it seems the Clips are only going to offer the last (14th or 15th roster spot) with the idea that if he can comes back healthy, they will be in a better position than anyone because they will own his “Bird rights”... which can only belong to the Clips… of course I don’t understand “Bird rights”, so I’m not sure of all the implications therein… but I think it means they can pay him anything without regard to the cap. Is that right?

by John Raffo on Jul 19, 2008 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions