The Clippers as Trade Patsies - Recent History Tells a Different Story
by Steve Perrin on Jun 2, 2009 2:28 PM PDT
in News
Email
PrintImmediately after the Clippers won the NBA draft lottery, stories began appearing wondering "How will the Clippers screw this up." Our home town paper even called Blake Griffin the loser of the lottery. Some of the trade rumors being circulated would indeed fall into the "screw up" category if they were to happen, which of course they won't. The first pick and Baron Davis for the third pick and Jeff Green? Yeah, that would be a problem. The perception is not limited to this year's draft either - before last year's trade deadline, there were numerous rumors floating about, with the Clippers sending out the likes of Marcus Camby and/or Chris Kaman for the equivalent of a six-pack of tube socks.
The Clippers are dysfunctional in many ways. Owner Donald T. Sterling is rightfully considered the worst owner in the NBA, probably the worst owner in professional sports. His track record as an owner is incredibly bad, and his track record as a human being (which includes mistresses, sexual harassment claims and multiple active racial discrimination lawsuits) is arguably worse. But are the Clippers patsies in NBA trade negotiations? Let's look at a decades worth of trades.
For this exercise, I went back to the 1999 off-season and looked at every single trade transaction involving a starter for any team involved in the trade. Obviously, trades are only one way of building a team, with the draft and free agency being other significant tools in the NBA GM's toolbox. I'll touch on those aspects later, but the main purpose of this post is to objectively examine a decade of Clipper trades.
August 4, 1999 - The Clippers sign and trade Lamond Murray to Cleveland for Derek Anderson and Johnny Newman. Anderson was the team's second leading scorer that season at 16.9 points per game. Murray averaged 15.9 for the Cavs. I would say that Anderson was the better player, but the Clippers allowed him to sign with the Spurs as a free agent the next summer, so it ended up being a wash. Winner: tie.
August 8, 1999 - The Clippers trade Lorenzen Wright to Atlanta for two future first round picks. Those picks become Quentin Richardson (taken 18th in 2000) and Chris Wilcox (taken 8th in 2002). Wright never lived up to his lottery pick promise and although both Richardson and Wilcox are long gone, they were productive players for the Clippers. Winner: Clippers.
June 28, 2000 - The Clippers send a protected future first round pick to the Magic for Corey Maggette, Derek Strong, the draft rights to Keyon Dooling (first round, 10th overall), the draft rights to Dan Langhi (second round, 31st overall) and cash. The Magic were desperately trying to clear cap space to make free agency offers to Grant Hill and Tracy McGrady, but even so, they took a bath on this one. Sometimes it helps to be lucky as well. The protection on the pick the Clippers sent to Orlando was top 21 in 2003, top 15 in 2004 and top 14 in 2005. The year the pick was finally unprotected in 2006, happened to be the best season in Clipper history - so they lost the 22nd pick in the draft, six years after acquiring Maggette. That pick was Marcus Williams (the one from UConn), who is playing in Puerto Rico last I heard. Winner: Clippers in a landslide.
June 27, 2001 - On draft day, the Clippers send the second pick Tyson Chandler and Brian Skinner to the Bulls for Elton Brand. Chandler became a decent player (for New Orleans) and Brand became an all pro. Winner: Clippers by a mile.
July 29, 2002 - In what appeared to be a great idea at the time, the Clippers trade Darius Miles and Harold Jamison to Cleveland for Andre Miller and Bryant Stith (Jamison and Stith are throw-ins). The Clippers needed a point guard, and Miller seemed the ideal candidate. Unfortunately, the trade didn't work out for either team, and Miller was in Denver a year later. Miller has been the better player, but there were no winners in this trade in retrospect. Winner: no one.
June 21, 2004 - Three days before the 2004 draft, the Clippers send the second overall pick to the Bobcats for the fourth overall pick and the 33rd overall pick in the second round. The Bobcats also agree to draft Peja Drobnjak in the expansion draft, part of the Clippers process of clearing salary to pursue free agent Kobe Bryant. The trade boils down to Emeka Okafor for Shaun Livingston, as Lionel Chalmers is out of the league by the next season (btw, Trevor Ariza was drafted 10 sports later at 43). It was a highly questionable trade at the time - the 2004 draft was widely held to be a two-player draft (Okafor and Dwight Howard) and the Clippers should have gotten more for the second pick. In hindsight it was of course disastrous given Livingston's injuries. Winner: Bobcats.
July 29, 2004 - In a theme that would repeat itself four years later, the Clippers find themselves far under the salary cap after being rejected by a superstar free agent (in 2004, it was Kobe Bryant). They use their cap space to trade a future second round pick (the 42nd pick in 2005, Chris Taft) to the Nets for Kerry Kittles $10M contract. The Clippers also got some cash in the deal. Kittles knees and back allow him to play only 11 games for the Clippers. Winner: New Jersey.
August 12, 2005 - In a trade that is already painful for T-Wolves fans, and will get more painful yet, the Clippers acquire Sam Cassell and a lottery protected first round pick for Marko Jaric and Lionel Chalmers in a sign and trade. To make matters significantly worse, the deal Jaric signed at the time still has two more seasons and is considered one of the worst contracts in the NBA. Cassell was instrumental in leading the Clippers further into the playoffs than they've ever been, and they are still owed a first rounder, which remains top 10 protected for two more seasons, but is unprotected in 2012. Winner: Clippers in a landslide BEFORE the draft pick kicks in.
February 14, 2006 - At the trade deadline, the Clippers send Chris Wilcox to Seattle straight up for Vladimir Radmanovic. Both players were in the final year of their contracts - the Sonics re-signed Wilcox, the Clippers lost Radmanovic. But the Clippers won this trade, if only because Vlad was a player they needed and was useful in their playoff run. Winner: Clippers.
July 15, 2008 - As was the case in 2004, the Clippers find themselves with money to spend after Elton Brand bolts for Philadelphia. Denver wants to get under the luxury tax, and send Marcus Camby to the Clippers for the right to swap second round picks in 2010 (the Nuggets won 54 games in 2009, the Clippers won 19 - so it's likely that this 'trade' will end up being literally for nothing). Camby averages 11.1 rebounds (fourth in the league) and 2.1 blocked shots (3rd). Winner: Clippers (though Denver of course got what they wanted also).
November 21, 2008 - The jury is decidedly out on this trade of Cuttino Mobley and Tim Thomas to New York for Zach Randolph and Mardy Collins. Randolph leads the Clippers in scoring and averaging 20 points and 10 rebounds on the season - Collins is a surprisingly versatile player able to contribute at three positions. Meanwhile, Mobley retires with a heart condition, and Tim Thomas gets moved yet again. There's no question who won this trade from a purely basketball standpoint - the Clippers gave up very little, and got a lot of productivity in return. But the Knicks got what they wanted, which is 2010 cap space, and the Clippers of course had to give that up. Add in the non-basketball factors, and you could consider this a terrible trade for the Clippers. Ask me again at the beginning of the 2010 season, because until then the Clippers simply haven't given up anything. Winner: TBD.
There you have it. Eleven trades in the past ten years. And on my score card, I've got the Clippers winning six of them, three of those by a wide margin, and only losing two of them (so far). And yet every rumor out there has the Clippers sending out loads of talent for nothing in return.
What is particularly intereting about the reality of the situation is that the Clippers' reputation as cheapskates is not at all what you see in their recent trade history. Fully three recent major trades saw LA taking on significant additional salary - it was their trade partner, not the Clippers, who were in cost-cutting mode. As it happens, the Kittles trade was a bad idea, and the Randolph trade will likely end up being a bad idea as well, but these aren't bad trades because the Clippers are being cheap - quite the opposite.
I realize that everything in the NBA is interconnected. Looking at trades in a vacuum ignores to some extent the backstory. For instance, it's easy enough to say that the Clippers did well when they traded Lorenzon Wright because Wright wasn't that good - but the Clippers drafted the guy seventh in 1996 (six picks ahead of a guy named Kobe, FWIW), so it's a net loss from screwing up the draft pick.
Worse still than the Clippers draft history is their history of retaining free agents. This too is interconnected. Murray, Wright, Mo Taylor, Michael Olowokandi - all lottery picks who walked at the end of their rookie contracts in LA. And all unworthy of the contracts they signed (or didn't sign, in the case of Kandi). So while the Clippers can scarcely be criticized for not retaining that list of stiffs, if they'd drafted players worth retaining in the first place it would be better for all concerned. And this problem also colors the various trades above. Derek Anderson, Andre Miller, Vlad Radmanovic - all available partly because they were due to be free agents. The Clippers ended up renting them for a year or less in each case because they didn't re-sign them. But on paper, all of those were good trades.
Still, the perception that the Clippers are the team to call if you're looking for a trade partner to fleece is just not justified by the facts. Not that any GM is setting planning to be taken to the cleaners - but if you were to make that sort of comment about Memphis or Minnesota, at least there'd be some precedent on your side.
45 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Glad you did this
Yes, the Miller trade was a good idea, and the Livingston trade was successful because the Clips got the guy they wanted in that draft. Whether he was the right guy or not is a different story. A seperate article is needed for Clipper draft debacles, an area, unlike trading, where they are guilty as charged. They don’t draft well. The Gordon pick is the exception. The Griffin pick is a no-brainer (thank goodness). In fact, it is a blessing that this is a one-player draft, unlike 2007, where Portland had two possibilities and possibly made the wrong choice. Those things may not
But back to the trades, I think the Randolph trade is a tie for the reasons Zhiv always cites; it got Tim Thomas off the court and it unearthed Eric Gordon from the depths of the bench. Those things may not have happened otherwise.
So, yes, the Clippers DO trade well.
F-Elton!
I have to agree
At #14, Al was a steal. The only other option was Rodney Stuckey. Other notable picks after Thornton would have been Beneliani, Wilson CHandler, Rudy Fernandez, Aaron Brroks, and Carl Landry. But reality is, I’d still take Thornton over all the other players, with the exception of Stuckey. Stuckey and Thornton both pocess great hidden talents.
I'd take Rudy and Landry over Al for sure
and possibly Chandler (hes younger and a better defender).
FA in 2010.
A request...
And I’m honestly not sure how to implement this… but when you do the drafting assessments, please create fact based benchmarks against other teams. My hypothesis (which is without any analysis whatsoever) is that there isn’t a single team out there with anywhere close to 100% drafting success rate over a decade. I suspect it’s much closer to batting average in baseball, where if you get four out of ten right then you’re having a MVP like campaign.
I don’t know whether you should pick a handful of teams that are typically held out as drafting exemplars (e.g., Spurs) and conduct the same analysis of all of their drafts over the same time period, but I’d be really interested to know what is a REALISTIC benchmark that we should be striving for in our draft performance. Many people like to trash the Koralev pick and correctly so. But I wonder how many other teams made a similar bungle in a similar slot over ten years — I’m guessing the percentage is higher than most people realize. It’s like asking why do pigeons have such good aim? They don’t – we only notice when they hit something and that becomes what we believe is a complete data set.
Great analysis on this topic. Glad someone is tackling it in a fact-based manner.
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Jun 2, 2009 3:10 PM PDT reply actions
The Darko pick by Detroit is perhaps the worst
especially in light of the fact that they passed on Carmelo AND Wade to get him.
But at least someone had heard of Darko. Nobody had ever heard of Korolev. Ever. It was completely ridiculous. Granted, Danny Granger did fall to #17, which is totally nuts. Likewise, Jameer Nelson fell to 22. I contended at the time that the Clippers should have grabbed him at #4. Or Devin Harris.
Many teams bungle their picks. It is a tough business. The Clippers record is really bad. But the last few drafts may change that.
F-Elton!
so basically...
if you start with 1998 our drafting has been mediocre I’d say.
Lets jsut forget about the bo kimble , terry dehere drafts.
Michael O was terrible.
lamar, has turned out ok, unfortunately he was immature for us
the q, and keyon dooling, darius miles year was not a particularly great draft, but darius i’d say was not the right pick,
tyson for EB was fine
shaun livingston was just plain bad luck,
korolev was horrible
thornton, eg, griffin, and deandre jordan are all probably good picks for the pick we had.
I mean if you go back to say, the brent barry/mcdyess, or eric piatkowski, years, ok thats terrible.
I still dont get the wilcox / melvin ely year.
I would consider is average to below average as far as drafts though. I mean we are no worse than the warriors. Or Knicks or most of the lottery regulars.
i dont think theres any real comparisons we can make I mean the clippers have probably had more lottery picks than any other team this decade. Maybe the grizzlies but thats about it. I dont count the bobcats because they’ve only been around 5/6 years.
Actually, I don't think it matters as much that we have had more lottery picks.
I’m trying to evaluate our effectiveness in picking relative to our position in the draft vs other team’s abilities to do the same relative to their positions in the draft. Effective and ineffective drafts occur at all positions. That is what I’m trying to gauge.
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Jun 2, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions
well if you’re not drafting in the lottery than mistakes become alot less significant because the parity in the draft is a lot less. If you draft a complete nobody in the 20’s, no ones going to blame anyone.
doesnt really relate but when you’re winning, you really dont care about rookies. Detriot got a pass (for a while) for drafting milicic because they won the title right afterwards.
A fair point...
I wouldn’t say that a pick in the 20s is totally irrelevant, but it’s certainly much less relevant to a team’s overall drafting “score”… which is why the exercise would ideally be normalized for draft position.
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Jun 2, 2009 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course it does - we have more opportunities than other teams do
to get lucky. Of course, poor management and coaching decrease the chance that our draft picks will ultimately be successful, but I digress.
by Jax on Jun 2, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions
In your haste to write something contrarian...
….you completely missed the point of my comment as well as the exercise I was trying to articulate in this strand (what is a successful drafting ratio?) as opposed to the one YOU are trying to articulate (which is to prove — yet again — that the Clips are poorly coached and managed).
Please go back and re-read comments in a thoughtful manner before you type something as a contrarian response that is completely irrelevant… then nobody can accuse you of digressing (other than yourself, of course).
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Jun 2, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions
Unfortunately,
you’ve misunderstood my intent. Let’s see if we can just discuss these issues reasonably. Feel free to respond to my main point if you’d like.
by Jax on Jun 2, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions
Why?
You are a completely closed-minded one-trick commenter.
And talk about responding to points…He is correct that, as usual, yours had nothing to do with his.
He asks for a proposed method of judging teams’ relative drafting history and you reply with, as usual, “I’m Jax and I hate Mike Dunleavy.”
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
Unfortunately, John R
I’ve really never seen one post of yours, in all these years, that offered an analysis of a basketball game, play, move, or anything else having anything remotely to do with the game itself (other than regurgitating info from the CBA).
But I’ve seen hundreds of posts from you denigrating others, including me, while you pump up your ego with boasts of how logical you are. You never let an opportunity to do that pass you by.
This is one of those posts.
Good job, John R.
Actually, I was looking for a reasonable and relevant response and feedback to MY main point (a post earlier in this strand entitled “A request…”), yet somehow you seem to have twisted it around as though I’m supposed to react to YOUR point… at best, this makes no sense. At worst, it just feels as though you’re trying to co-opt and redirect the discussion that had started before you even posted. Perhaps that is not your intention, but that is exactly how it feels.
If you wish to have people respond to your main point (which I’m sure some people would be happy to do), wouldn’t it makes sense to start a different strand rather than twist the existing one?
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Jun 3, 2009 12:22 AM PDT up reply actions
While it was almost 20 years ago......
My favorite Clipper trade of all time while in LA, second only to the trade for Brand, was the trade for Ron Harper. He was fun to watch before he blew out his knee.
An interesting example...
of the bad drafts followed by good trades phenomenon. Danny Ferry, drafted second overall, refused to play for the Clippers and went to Italy. How they parlayed that into Ron Harper was amazing.
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 Jun 2, 2009 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Maybe the Wolves can declare basketball bankruptcy and keep the pick
Or maybe they can get a few first round picks as bailout from the Commish.
Note: One of these has NBA precedent.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
Great Post...
I would only take issue with your position that the Clips got the short end of the Kittles deal. Maybe they didn’t do their due diligence regarding Kittle’s physical condition but he started every game the year before, averaged 13 points and was considered a top defender… and the Clips got 1.5M off his 10M salary… all for a second round pick. I’m not at all sure you can call that a bad trade.
Foresight versus hindsight...
Obviously they gave up essentially nothing, and since he was in the final year of his deal it wasn’t even a problem for the salary cap long term. So no real skin off the fans noses – it was worth a shot, and certainly doesn’t fit the ‘cheapskate’ stereotype. But 11 games for $8.5M? Call it bad luck or whatever, but in retrospect it certainly didn’t work out.
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 Jun 2, 2009 11:13 PM PDT up reply actions
Bad Luck
The Kittles trade made a lot of sense. It was a classic Clipper curse/injury play. He was a good fit and the team would have been much better with him, but his NBA lifespan ended just as he joined the team.
Yet we win trades and still end up a lottery team more times then not. Elgin seemed to be much better at trading and finding talent then at drafting talent.
The trade I regret the most was the Antonio McDyess trade. Brent Barry was fun to watch but McDyess was a stud and we never should have let him go. Whenever I get to bummed I remember that Joe Smith was drafted with the number one pick that year so there is that.
The Harper deal was my favorite trade, we traded a guy who dissed our team for an exciting player. As someone said above until he destroyed his knee he was awesome.
I loved the Kittles trade, his back just couldn’t play for us but his history didn’t show any problems. He’d have been perfect for that team.
I can’t believe how lousy Miller was for us. I loved him before the trade and have not been able to root for him ever since. I used to think it was his fault but maybe it was the idiots around him. They are all long gone and he’s still playing top caliber basketball. Still remember his crazy drives into lane at crunch time, not getting the foul call and never putting the ball in the hole. He did have that one memorable game against Kidd on Thanksgiving that I thought was going to turn around our season.
All these memories, makes me want to renew.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
I also remember at the time of the miller trade..
that baron davis was the other possibility.
I remember he signed his fat extension shortly after the miller trade as even then he wanted to “come home”.
I am not sure it would have gone any differently had we gone with baron instead of miller, but looking back given the personell we had at the time (miles, q, dooling, lamar, etc) maybe baron would have worked a little better.
Hasn’t history shown that the talent really wasn’t as good as we thought it was. Miles even before the knee injury never turned into what we had hoped. Q could shoot three’s and that was about all after he left us. Dooling never became anymore then a backup point guard. Not surprisingly Lamar has done the most but not as much as his skills would have suggested. Candyass was the center and like Kaman could show spurts of excellence but once the contract was signed he was done as a competitive basketball player.
Maybe the best thing Elgin ever did was ignoring the “advice” from the LA Times and letting talent like Taylor and Candyass walk away. We are still a lottery team but at least we didn’t have to cheer for those slugs after they signed contracts.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
Antonio McDyess...
I’ve remarked on this before, but I remember the McDyess trade differently. I was sure it was for the picks that became Brent Barry and Eric Piatkowski but also brought us Bison Dele (then known as Brian Williams). Steve Perrin (then known as Clipper Steve) disagreed and said Williams came in a different deal, but admitted that it might have been backdoor part of the first trade. Sound familiar?
Of course this was a lifetime ago, back in the yuck… Bill Fitch days. Jeez, you guys think the players don’t like Dunleavy? They HATED Fitch.
No need to guess...
We have a database for these things.
June 28 1995 – McDyess and Randy Woods (now there was a bad draft pick) for Rogers and Barry. I disliked this trade for the same reason I disliked the 2004 trade – the second overall pick has more value than that – they simply should have gotten more. Elton Brand – that’s what you get for a second pick. Not Rodney Rogers.
Sept 19 1995 – Williams/Dele arrived in a trade with the Nuggets for Elmore Spencer (yet another case of ‘bad pick, good trade’). What happened next is hazy for me – he sat out most of the next season, but it seems like he was still under contract. The Bulls signed him in the last two weeks of the season and he won a ring, I think. And of course his life got stranger and more tragic from there. But he could play.
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 Jun 2, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah, but I think it was all one trade...
…and that was my point. No way anyone does a straight up trade Williams for Spencer (all the deals were with the Nuggets). Williams was already a rotation player… a massive pf/center with great upside and Spencer was a flop. I believe it was part of the earlier trade. So, you have to look at it as Rogers, Barry, Piatkowski, Williams for McDyess and parts… a starting center, a big forward, and a pair of big guards for the number two pick. Not a terrible trade at all, but Williams was a free agent the next season, held out, finally signed with the Bulls… so, in light of that, I suppose it was just a bad deal.
These were the days when a big strong center was considered a ticket to the playoffs, the Clips had finally given up on Stanley Roberts and desperately needed pieces, a lot of them after a string of terrible draft picks… and they already had Loy Vaught at power forward and didn’t think they needed McDyess.
Brian Williams was a remarkable one year phenom for the Clips: a charming, blue-eyed, barrel-chested monster. One of the few guys who could mix it up in the paint with guys like Shaquille. The press corps loved him and so did the fans (me, anyway). It was absolutely horrible when he couldn’t come to terms with the team. I think he only played one more full season before his death.
I remember this conversation now...
I don’t know how we would establish this. You’re certainly right that the Williams for Spencer deal doesn’t make sense on the surface, and that fact that the official dates are different is suspicious. But trades often have ‘future’ considerations. Anyone out there remember or have a link that would settle this? Maybe we should send an email to Ralph.
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 Jun 3, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions
However Williams ended up on our team
he was a favorite of mine. Was glad he got his Bull ring and was bummed by how he died.
Patience is for those who die waiting for something to happen
This happened back in the stone age...
…before the internet anyway. I don’t think I’m making this up. I must have read it somewhere, and that somewhere is almost certainly the L.A. Times. Unfortunately, I don’t think their online database goes back that far. I’ll try and hit the microfiche the next time I’m at the library, but I’m not sure I care that much. Course, I’m not sure anyone else cares at all….
There one thing I do seem to have wrong is Piatkowski. He was drafted the year before with Lamond Murray… and apparently was not part of this trade at all. My bad on that.
Hated that Miller trade
It always seemed too good to be true or to work. Miller’s stats seemed to be inflated because he was playing for a lousy team. Lots of signs pointed to the idea that he was the perfect fit, the piece that would put the Clippers into the playoffs, but I always had a bad feeling about it.
A big reason was that the whole of the Odom-Q-Miles mix seemed so obviously to be greater than the sum of its parts. Taking Miles, who seemed so promising for such a brief period of time, out of the mix seemed to deflate everybody.
And then it got so much worse when Andre Miller showed up, completely bereft of a personality. You can put the blame on all of the expiring contracts, and Olowokandi was an insane part of the mix, but I think that the funk started with one-and-done Andre Miller. Miles would have been playing for his future and the pure basketball joy that he and LO and QRich were experiencing, along with Maggette and FElton and Jaric. Instead the Clips traded for a “leader” who didn’t talk to anybody, didn’t care, didn’t lead.
Reminds us, however, that the best thing that ever happened to the Clips was Olowokancer turning down the 65 million RFA offer.
Also interesting to compare Miller’s horrendous year on the Clips with last year’s effort by Baron Davis. Hmmm.
With regard to the Kittles trade ...
If I remember correctly, wasn’t his salary taken to put the Clips above a minimum salary level? We had cleared so much cap space for Kobe (and spent a considerable amount of time wooing him as well) that we were left with few options that summer. Taking on a one year contract was an attempt to bring in a big free agent the next summer (Ray Allen).
That sounds familiar...
I’m might have it wrong, but then, when Allen re-signed with the Sonics, Clips picked up Cuttino Mobley as the consolation prize? Is that right?
Minimum salary...
If the Clippers cleared enough to offer Kobe a max extension, they likely needed to do something to get to the minimum payroll specified in the CBA. But it certainly didn’t have to be $10M.
Some quick math – cap in 04-05 was $43.9M. Min. is 75% of that, so that’s about $33M. Kobe was eligible for a max salary of 30% of the cap, so that’s $13M or so. If the Clippers cleared exactly enough to sign Kobe (which IIRC is what they did), then they were probably only a couple mil under and could easily have gotten up to the min signing minimum type guys. So, they weren’t forced into signing Kittles in that sense.
And yes, the fact that Kittles was a one year deal left them in position to be free agency players the next summer, when they made a play for Ray Ray and got the consolation prize of Cat Mobley.
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 Jun 2, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Can you "win" a trade if you don't win games?
Judging trades isn’t as simple as saying “We got the better player, we won.” Did anyone really “win” the Radman/Wicox deal? I think the tunnel vision on talent is a problem when looking at trades here. It’s not just about getting the best guy; it’s about guys that will help you win or put you in better cap situation. The Pistons obviously “lost” the Iverson/Billups deal but they weren’t getting better and now they have cap space to go after a legit PF. The Hornets gave away Baron Davis but they tanked their way to Chris Paul and built a team that is much better than Baron’s Warriors.
The most extreme example is the Celtics’ deal of Brandon Roy and Raef Lafrentz for Bassy and Theo Ratliff. Terrible deal for the Celtics, right? Not really. Because Theo had one year less on his deal than Raef, the Celtics were able to use him in the deal for Kevin Garnett. On it’s face, it’s a terrible deal but in the big picture, that awful deal helped bring the NBA title to Boston.
The Clippers aren’t getting shafted anymore (like the Dice for Barry/Rogers deal) and have made a couple of solid deals but it’s not like they’re improving themselves any. The key gauge of a decade of deals is in the W/L column and all of these trades haven’t really gotten the Clippers anywhere.
Ranking the Ten Worst Moves of the 2008 Offseason @ www.soulhonky.com
It's a valid point...
I tried to defuse this argument at least a bit by admitting in the piece that there’s much more to building a team. More specifically, these trades are only really ‘winners’ in a vacuum. In many, many cases, the outgoing player was a draft bust. Draft well in the first place, and you’re already a winner without having to make a trade. In the old ‘2 steps back, 1 step forward’ the bad draft is 1 step back, inability to retain players is another step back, and good trades is one step forward. Hence, the Clippers tend to move backwards.
It’s worth noting that it it took not one, not two, but THREE decidedly one sided trades over the course of 5 years – three trades that brought in the Clippers three leading scorers from 05-06 – to get the Clippers into the playoffs. They had a lot of backwards steps to overcome.
(By the way, given that Radman contributed to a solid close to the 05-06 season and to a playoff series win, I’d definitely rank that trade as a win in the W-L column – Wilcox was redundant with the bigs already on the team, and he wasn’t going to re-sign in LA any more than Vlad did.)
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
But it wasn't Brandon Roy it was Randy Foye...
Less terrible anyway. The really terrible deal of course was Minnesota’s trade of Roy for Foye… which was really clueless.
Sterling's involvement
This post opened my eyes a bit. Great post. My question is how much of a factor has Sterling had in the draft? Seems the Clippers royally screw up the lottery picks, but have been pretty savvy when making deals. If Sterling has the final say, a la, Steinbrenner and Al Davis, then perhaps everyone’s view of Elgin Baylor, (and to a certain extent Mike Dunleavy) success as a GM should be seen differently. Baylor won most of his trades, a few of them by a wide margin and the one’s he lost were mainly due to injury.
Hard to say...
The insider accounts of Sterling’s impact on the basketball ops are few. There was certainly a time when ‘cheap’ was an accurate description, but that’s only semi-relevant in NBA trades, where the rules indicate that most trades have to be a salary wash, at least in the first season. Baylor’s predecessor as GM has a famous quote about how when Sterling left the office, he’d change his mind about something based on his conversation with whomever was on the elevator with him. Ted Green tells a similar story – how Sterling asked him multiple times who the next coach should be while he was working as a radio analyst for the team. And I got the impression earlier this season that he was asking Mark Heisler of the Times for advice. So the best thing I can surmise about Sterling’s impact of basketball is that he changes his mind a lot, which no doubt makes everything difficult.
I had a thought that maybe his lack of decisiveness means that only complete no-brainer type deals (like Brand for Chandler) get approved, therefore making the Clippers ‘batting average’ on trades higher. So, for instance in the last couple of years, we’ve heard about DTS vetoing Maggette for Jason Terry, vetoing Cassell and the first round pick for Mike Miller. By the way, let’s all remember that one, shall we? Cassell and the pick that became Eric Gordon for Mike Miller? Sterling was right – absolutely 100% correct – if indeed he was the guy who put the kaibosh on 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
And when Sterling agreed to pay, Dunleavy got Cat Mobley and Tim Thomas
Sterling is, without a doubt, one of the worst owners in sports but Elgin and Dunleavy have been bad all over their own.
Ranking the Ten Worst Moves of the 2008 Offseason @ www.soulhonky.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
