Reviewing the Kaman Injury Situation
Last night during the broadcast of the Clippers-Bobcats game, Ralph Smith uttered, for the first time I believe, a specific target game for Chris Kaman to return to action from his foot injury. Ralph set his return for March 10, against the Cavs. Now obviously that could turn out to be incorrect. We've seen this injury defy logic, not to mention our understanding of the very nature of time itself, on several occasions. But Ralph is a company guy, and pretty circumspect with disseminating information. If he said it on the air, it's because he's heard MDsr say it first. He didn't just take the 'two more weeks' statement from Feb. 24, add 14 days and come up with March 10 (which works, by the way). No, this is a target game, the first one we've had.
As it happens, that Cleveland game is only nine days away, with a mere three games intervening. Which means that Kaman's return to the lineup is imminent. Which all begs the question... Chris who?
You see, it's been a LONG time since we've seen the guy. The last time Chris Kaman played for the Clippers, George W. Bush was president. He's missed the Clippers last 45 games, and if indeed he returns against the Cavs, that number will be 48. Plus he missed 26 of the final 43 games last season as well. Which will, again assuming he actually returns on the 10th, have him playing in a measly 32 of 106 Clippers games - that's 30%. He did manage to be a pretty consistent presence for Team Deutschland over the summer though, so it's not like he hasn't been playing at all. Taken in the context of all the time he's missed, the 19 games he might actually play in March and April become pretty significant in his career. In fact, he hasn't played more than 15 consecutive games since calendar year 2007.
We've almost completely forgotten about the guy around here. When we talk about the team being at full strength, we mean Camby and Zach and Baron back out there (and now Gordon is the one we need). We lament the Clippers weak interior defense against a guy like Emeka Okafor, realizing only as an afterthought, oh yeah, Kaman's actually our best post defender. So with his return getting closer to reality, let's reacquaint ourselves with some of the key questions (bearing in mind that with Kaman, there really are no answers).
Question 1 - Is Chris Kaman injury-prone?
You may be asking the wrong guy. You see I'm not convinced that there is such a thing as "Injury-prone." There's clearly a difference between body types, so I'm willing to accept that a Shaun Livingston because of his lean frame. But then again, Tayshaun Prince is arguably the most slender player at his position in the league, and he has never missed a game due to injury in over 500 career games. So short of being LeBron James or Kobe Bryant, guys that defy categorization, I'm not even convinced there's an ideal body type for durability. If you're too frail, you're susceptible to more punishment at the hands of your opponents. If you're too bulky, you're carrying around extra weight that may over time cause joints to wear out. (By the way, LeBron may be the Bruce Willis character from Unbreakable - an actual superhero, impervious to injury. But I don't think any of the Mr. Glass types get drafted in the NBA to begin with.)
Speaking of Kobe, there's also an element of determination and tolerance for pain that plays into injuries. Kobe won't sit out where others might. But it's apples and oranges when you're talking about a team whose season is already over. There's little or no reason to play with pain or to risk further injury.
Guys that are labeled injury-prone prove otherwise all the time and for years at a time. Zydrunas Ilgauskas was the post-Bill Walton poster child for'big white dudes whose careers were ended by foot injury.' Z missed NBA games before he was 26. And then he averaged 78 games per season for the next six seasons. Antonio McDyess, Marcus Camby, Grant Hill - all of these players were the very definition of injury-prone - every basketball fan in the nation knows that there is no way they can avoid a serious injury for an entire season. Except that McDyess has for five consecutive seasons, Camby has for three, and even Hill has played in over 90% of the Suns games the last two seasons. And that's for a bunch of guys in their mid-30s. Kaman is 26.
So no, I don't think Chris Kaman is injury-prone. Nor do I think that he is un-injury-prone (injury-unprone?, injury-supine?). Because I don't believe in injury-prone. Either a guy's injury is healed, and his body is once again sound, or it's not. Do particular injuries leave a player more susceptible to re-injury? I'm no exercise physiologist, but sure, probably so. But it's worth noting that Kaman has missed these 70+ games not with some chronic recurring injury, but with a combination of problems - a shin bruise, a bad back, and now a partially torn tendon in his arch.
Question Number 2 - So how many games can we expect Kaman to play next season?
See Question Number 1.
Question Number 3 - Who will start for the Clippers when Kaman returns?
This one I know for certain. In the first game of Kaman's return, Camby and Randolph will start, and Kaman will come off the bench - because MDsr always works guys back into the lineup that way. After that, it's less clear.
Obviously, all three of these guys think of themselves as starters. So there are ego issues involved. The 'working him back in slowly' approach may present an opportunity. If the team happens to play well in the first few games with Kaman coming off the bench, there will be an argument for leaving it that way. If the team continues to struggle, then maybe you try something different. In Detroit, the answer to a similar problem has become pretty apparent - with Rip Hamilton coming off the bench, they lost 8 straight. With him back in the starting lineup, they won two straight against top teams. So sometimes results dictate an obvious answer (and in the case, the Answer is not the answer).
In a vacuum, without the benefit of actual game results, there are several factors. Let's just establish right off the bat that they can't all start. I'm not certain they can play any minutes together, but they certainly won't be on the floor together much. Randolph would seem too important to the offense at this point to limit his role. I think he remains in the starting lineup. MDsr has been enamored of the idea of bringing a scorer off the bench in the past (see Maggette, Corey). So in the classic Ross/Maggette tradition, it is easy to imagine Camby, the defender, starting over Kaman, the post scorer. Of course, Camby will turn 35 in three weeks, so it's also reasonable to want to reduce his role going forward.
Question Number 4 - Does it make sense to have Randolph, Camby and Kaman on the same team?
Well no, not really. There's nothing inherently wrong with having three starter quality players for two positions - we've done the math, we know that tthere are 96 minutes to share, we know that injuries and foul trouble are going to be such that many nights there will be no log jam at all.
And they can be effective together two at a time, I'm convinced of that. Thinking back to the beginning of this season, there was ample consternation over the perceived problem of having Kaman and Camby play together. But as it happens, for the measly dozen games that they were together, they were the best thing about the Clippers. The problems in the first month of the season were frankly everywhere else. Likewise Camby and Randolph have meshed well. The simple fact is, Camby is a complementary player, and can fit in well in almost any situation because of his skill set - he doesn't need the ball, so he can co-exist with anyone. The wild card is of course Kaman and Randolph. But I think that will work as well. Randolph has more range than Brand, so he will be able to space the floor better than the 2006 playoff Clipper bigs. He's also a good, if not overly enthusiastic passer. The Brand-Kaman model is apropos on defense as well. Back then, Brand often defended the bigger opposing big, while Kaman defended the quicker opposing big. It wasn't always ideal - Kaman on Nowitzki for instance wasn't pretty. But he has the quickness to defend most fours. Whether Kaman and Randolph develop any rapport remains to be seen, but two skilled big men is not going to be a bad thing.
The more basic building-an-NBA-Team-101 question is, do you want $34M in salary tied up in three bigs? That's the real problem, but we are where we are. Each individual move probably made sense by itself - extending Kaman is a bargain if he plays like he did in 07-08. Acquiring Camby for essentially nothing was certainly a good move. And trading for Randolph, given the fact that neither Tim Thomas nor Cat Mobley were difference makers for the team, is a good move also. But do all the moves work in concert with one another? And what is the opportunity cost of NOT being able to trade Thomas and Mobley now, of NOT having the money that was given to Camby? These are tougher questions.
Question Number 5 - Will Kaman be traded this offseason?
There are several good reasons to want to get Chris Kaman back on the floor this season. One of them is to figure out if and how this team actually fits together, and if it has a chance of being competitive in the Western Conference as currently constituted. Unfortunately, the answer to that second question is probably no. Which brings up the other reason to want Kaman back - to showcase him for a trade.
Players with Kaman's combination of size and skills are few and far between. There's little question that he has value on the trade market. However, that value was at an all time low leading up to last week's trade deadline, given the fact that he'd missed 70+ games in the recent past. If he can play well for the final month of the season, he'll boost his value, at least a little. MDsr likes Kaman a lot, and always has. He may have an unrealistic opinion of how good he is, and of what he should bring in trade. But he'll happily move him for the right offer.
And just as was the case before the deadline, Camby will be in even more demand. His extremely cap friendly contract and his consistent production make him a coveted addition to any playoff team in need of front court help. So assuming the experiment is actually conducted, and assuming the results are less than impressive, either Kaman or Camby will be moved this summer.
Those are the big questions. There are many, many more of course. But it's looking like we'll actually be getting some answers - finally - beginning next Tuesday.
24 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Buy, Sell, Hold
Other than getting EJ back and rooting for him to finish strong, Kaman’s return is pretty much the only dangling carrot we have left to distract us from the teams overall record and the coaching situation.
With Kaman being the longest tenured Clipper, and still at a prime age, I can see how they’d like to keep him, especially after seeing the limitations of a Randolph/ Camby front line last night.
We were reluctant to trade Camby at the deadline, and I could see us wanting to keep him around for his leadership, effort & flexibility. At his advanced age, he’d be the guy to benefit most from coming off the bench and playing fewer minutes.
Randolph would be tough to move even if we wanted to, but it looks like we want to move him the least out of the three, so we pretty much know he’s gonna be here borrowing anything unforseen.
The big three could work, or it could not. DeAndre isn’t developing fast enough to make room for him just yet, but this years draft might end up forcing our hand. If we’re in position to draft a big then all bets could be off. I personally don’t like this scenario, thinking our best bet is to push Thornton or BD w/ Jennings/Rubio or DeRozan/Aminu. In the unlikely event we get a shot at Blake Griffin, could he play small forward?
Having said all that, I think the tendency would be to hold on to the big three. We can afford to commit 34Mil to two spots because we have two other starters on rookie contracts. We got away with starting a rookie at one of those spots for the majority of the year, and it’s worked out great. But perhaps the biggest faux paus by the GM this past off season was to give Thornton the keys to the car at small forward with no real competition. Hopefully we don’t make this same mistake again, but I don’t see how that’s possible. We keep talking about the depth in our front court, though the back court is plenty crowded as well with Mike Taylor coming back and showing flashes of what he could do, and with the consistency and improvement we’ve seen out of Jones & Collins, the 5 guards we have provide their own log jam of sorts, except what’s nice is that there’s a pecking order at the top.
Back to Kaman, I had pretty much forgot about him. But really, once he gets back in the rotation, and we get a chance to address the weaknesses of this team in the off season, Dunleavy will more than likely get another shot at rebooting this reclamation project. He’s already somewhat of a lame duck, but if there’s little to no improvement next year, this could turn into one of the most hostile coaching environments we’ve ever seen. Of course, maybe the worst scenario for many of us is to have the team do just enough to keep Sterling’s trigger finger on ice.
Big Three???
Ok, lets hold off calling them the big three. Its more like the Three Bigs.
No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities. -Christian Nestell Bovee
Blake Griffin
Is a pure PF (maybe a C for a small ball lineup). Think of a more athletic Carlos Boozer. He could be the next Mailman, he should be a lock as 20/10 player for a very long time.
Aside from Griffin, we could draft Rubio who would at least give us something to be excited for in the future. We could have backcourt 2010 with EJ and Rubio.
Falling outside those two players, we’d have to consider packaging our pick with one of our bigs for a disgruntled franchise player elsewhere.
We could do something huge like Kaman, Baron and pick for Okafor, Felton and Wallace. Obviously trading for 3/5ths of a roster from a team that can’t make the playoffs in the East sounds unappealing but we’d be pretty deep. Not sure but Baron might be popular in Charlotte still from his days with the Hornets???
SG – EJ
PG – Felton (haha to be confused with FElton)
C – Okafor
PF – Randolph
SF – Wallace
Bench – Thornton, Camby (who we could trade in a separate deal), Collins, Novak, Jordan, Fred Jones
No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities. -Christian Nestell Bovee
Charlotte wouldn't be interested
Larry Brown, MJ and Rod Higgins have worked carefully to rebuild the Bobcats, and the Bobcats now believe they are a playoff team – if not this year then definitely next year. They have no interest in blowing up the team to bring in Baron and Kaman. At this point, I really can’t see Larry Brown signing off on any trade that brought Baron aboard. If the Bobcats did make a major trade, they would have to get back a true star player and team leader – playoff Baron and Kaman 2.0, not coach killer Baron and Kaman MIA.
Also, Felton is a serviceable but below average starting PG. Ideally, he should be a 6th man, not a starter. Remember that the Bobcats used the draft last year to bring in his replacement even though they had no PF besides Sean May at the time. Felton is also a RFA, and I doubt that he would go along with a complicated Sign-and-trade to the Clippers unless they seriously overpaid him.
Wallace might be had in a trade for Kaman but only if the Clippers also took back Nazr or Diop, who both have long, expensive contracts. Okafor isn’t going anywhere unless the Bobcats get back a franchise player in return.
As for Baron’s popularity here – he is definitely a connection back to the Hornets, but I’m not sure that’s a good thing. The Hornets were Charlotte’s first major professional team, and they were unconditionally loved here. When they left for New Orleans, a lot of folks turned their backs on the NBA, and Charlotte became a football city. Baron wouldn’t inspire any special sense of nostalgia here.
Kaman injury in perspective
Kaman sits out 48 games with a strained right arch, Gerald Wallace sits out maybe 15 games with a partially collapsed lung and fractured ribs..
tisk tisk kaman
It doesn't sound nearly as life threatening
But come on… you try playing basketball when your foot is messed up. Running, jumping, quick lateral movements… it’s pretty much impossible if your arch is messed up.
I'm not a doctor
So I’m not going to speculate on whether or not Kaman should have been back sooner. It’s certainly been frustrating, and it’s been handled poorly in that no one ever expected him to be out this long. Amazingly, even when Kaman was on the broadcast with Milph during the Memphis game, they really did very little to explain the injury, the recovery, etc. They had graphics prepared of the tendon in his arch… but then they let Kaman do the talking and I came away knowing nothing, with no idea when he would be back, etc. And that was a few days before the All Star Break, so the expectation at the time was that he was very, very close to returning. They did nothing to prepare fans for him being out another month. It’s all been handled poorly.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Mar 2, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions
Great Post
Very well done. Great effort, perfect in every way. Getting started with a quote from “Ralph Smith,” aka Milph, aka Ralph Lawler, all perfectly legitimate sobriquets including this new one, shows just how deep we are in Clipper esoterica here at La Nacion. And maybe it’s better to mention here the Hamlet quote credited to Addams family in the other thread, as Kaman’s return is definitely a “to be or not to be” moment.
The one thing that hasn’t really been added to the mix in this discussion is Camby’s contract situation. This situation seems to me to be about the rules of subtraction. If you trade Kaman—that is, he plays well in 15 games, so he has a decent trade value in the offseason—, are you thereby assuming that you’ll keep Camby and resign him. Yes, Camby is an expiring contract, but he’s also going to be an unrestricted free agent. Are the Clips saying then that the 2010 free agent that they want to sign is Marcus Camby? To what kind of deal?
There’s also the Core Philosophy, “Do Nothing” scenario, which seems to be the most likely result. You keep Kaman and Randolph and Camby stays on the roster, his contract tantilizing to other teams all the way up to the Feb 2010 trade deadline. If there’s no obvious move, Camby’s contract runs out. And by the way, at that point, Zbo is either a fabulous roster piece, or he becomes a massive expiring contract himself.
We might also thrown in BSimmons’ doomsday scenario, where teams and the league are bleeding out and there are collective bargaining issues becoming clearer in 2010 as the deal comes up in 2011. Maybe the 2010 free agent class won’t be such a financial bonanza after all, and contract levels could be down across the board except for a few elite players. Maybe Camby comes off the books and he isn’t replaced—if anybody is going to be out in front of frugality issues, it’s going to be DTS. It’s ironic that the Clippers might be able to gel and put together a Depression-era heyday as the rest of the league devolves into crisis. Nah. That could never happen.
Funny...
Ralph Smith was totally unintentional… I just zhived it. I could pretend it was intentional – it does kind of work. I usually try to attribute things to only one of them, when appropriate, and it was Ralph who talked about the Cavs game. but I’ll leave it as is: as Pee Wee Herman said when he fell off his bike: “I meant to do that.”
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
"sobriquet"...
I guess I’ve never understood that word. I thought when you “tossed sobriquets” you were throwing “bon mots” or something like that. Then I thought perhaps you meant it ironically or with opprobrium. Finally, I gave in and looked it up. Where else am I forced to reach for the dictionary when reading about basketball. Clipsnation is educational too!
We do likey the multisyllabic
By the way, I’ve not heard the phrase ‘tossing sobriquets’ before. Are you sure it’s not a bastardization of ‘tossing bouquets?’
For some reason, there are lots of grand synonyms for ‘nickname’. Sobriquet, moniker, nom de plume, nom de guerre…
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
Nom de net
Good point.
We’ve done sobriquet before—I was actually going to point that out, but decided against it.
You guys, typically, are right...
I’m all tangled up. I don’t know why you’d toss a sobriquet. Makes no sense. But one would toss a bon mots, wouldn’t one?
bon mot tossing...
a quick Google search yielded a discussion of the phrase as used in some unnamed novel:
“She is basically everything i hate about the Upper East Side, distilled into 195 pound doe-eyed, bon mot tossing, label-whoring package of girlie evil.”
In the context above, I would take it to mean ‘name dropping’ or perhaps ‘fancy schmancy’.
However, generally speaking bon mot would be a positive thing – a clever remark, a witticism. So tossing bon mots would actually be a good thing – perhaps making a series of clever remarks.
In that sense, one could toss a sobriquet as well I suppose. Our former President, that W fellow, had a penchant for giving everyone a nickname as I understand it. So he might have been “Tossing sobriquets around the Oval Office.”
By the way, as bon mot is French (literally meaning ‘good word’), the hyper-correct pluralization would be bons mots – as the s is added to the adjective in French as well as the noun.
And the veterinary coroner just called to declare this horse officially beaten to death.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Mar 3, 2009 12:10 AM PST up reply actions
Trade
I’ll preface this by saying that I haven’t read anything legitimate about the Mavs interest in Kaman. Nevertheless, what do you think the possibilities are of the Clips entertaining a Stackhouse/Carroll for Kaman/Skinner or Kaman/Davis trade?
Stackhouse technically “has” a contract worth 7.25 mil next year, but only 2 mil is guaranteed. Carroll will be at 4.7 mil and his contract runs through 2011/2012, but it goes down each year. I’m working off the salaries listed at ShamSports.
So, if I’m thinking correctly, the Clips would instantly save over 5 mil off next years cap. And this is the only reason I could think the Clips would do it – i.e. an overall, and immediate, salary dump. Stack’s days of contribution, due to age and injuries, appear to be over (RIP). Carroll has been a nice 3 point shooter throughout his career, but has done nothing this year (and of course has that bad contract).
Obviously, that isn’t much for someone of Kaman’s caliber. Maybe the Clips have grown tired of the injuries/want to get rid of his contract?
P.S. This is a terrific blog, ClipperSteve. It’s one of my favorites on the entire SBNation network. Keep up the good work.
Not happening, based on what we've been told
Rumor has it that the Clippers had several opportunities to do a straight salary dump for Kaman and chose not to. This deal, taking by Carroll, is far worse, since Carroll’s contract is terrible, and he replicates Novak at any rate.
So problem 1 is that the Clippers, to this point any way, have not shown any indication that they would accept salary relief only for Kaman. Problem 2 is that even if they were interested in that, this deal doesn’t provide nearly as much as another deal might.
If the Clippers are going to do a salary dump, my guess is it would be Baron.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
Care to share
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
This is probably lost down here...
But wasn’t it Mikey P who referenced Art Thompson (?) before the trading deadline, saying how management was done with Kaman? Still, don’t think they’d do a straight salary dump. Makes no sense.
Someone cut and pasted an email from AT3...
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
Ooops… premature comment posting…
Anyway, Art told me the same thing. He thinks they’re going to move Kaman. I honestly don’t know if that was sourced information, or Art talking. Now that he’s not reporting officially reporting on this stuff, he’s more opinionated, which is great. But you have to know the difference.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
Here's the link...
The comment was from Citizen Lawler’s Law, who received an email from AT3 on the subject and posted it on an earlier Kaman thread.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd

by 









