In Defense of Zach Randolph

by Steve Perrin on Jul 4, 2009 11:19 PM PDT in News Comment 93 comments

I'm glad his contract is gone, but I'm going to miss his scoring and rebounding.

What is it about the Clippers? Quick - name an active NBA player who has averaged 20 or more points per game in three separate seasons but never been named to an All Star team. There are three that I can find:

It's axiomatic to say that anyone can score 20 points per game if they shoot enough - and while it's true, it's also not true at all. Or rather, what is true is that 20 point per game scorers are invariably exalted within the NBA, even if their skills are in fact rather limited outside of putting the ball in the basket. So Allen Iverson is a ten time all star and Rashard Lewis is a two time selection, and I'm not real clear on what those guys ever did beyond scoring 20 points per game.

At any rate, the Clippers have had at least one of these guys on their roster forever now... so it's going to be a little weird not to have some guy labeled 'low basketball IQ' or 'black hole' on the team next season.

Of course, the single biggest reason that these guys don't make All Star teams is that they have pretty much always played on bad teams. And in a conveniently circular argument, this is of course the ultimate proof to the detractors of players like Maggette and Randolph - they clearly aren't any good, since they've never played for a winning team.

Of course, it goes without saying that a player can neither win nor lose games single-handedly, so holding any player solely responsible for his team's win-loss record is ridiculous. Not to mention that there are countless NBA players who lost a lot of games when they were on bad teams - and then won a lot of games when they went to a good team.

For Clipper fans, consider the case of Ron Harper. During his career with the Clippers, he was a high flyer and big time scorer - but he never won a playoff series, and therefor he was a 'loser' and his stats were considered 'empty'. But he finished his career by winning five championships in six seasons - as a role player with the Bulls and Lakers. Suddenly he's one of the biggest 'winners' in NBA history. Or more recently, how about Pau Gasol? He had never won a single playoff game before last season. Now, he's got back to back Western Conference Championships and an NBA title. Is he a better player in LA than he was in Memphis? Of course not. But suddenly he's making the All NBA team, which certainly never happened in Memphis.

I'm not suggesting that Zach Randolph is as good as Pau Gasol, who is a truly special NBA player - and was so even as he toiled in anonymity in Tennessee. I AM suggesting that if Pau Gasol had been traded to the Thunder, instead of the Lakers, he might very well have been labeled a 'loser' who puts up 'empty stats.' After all, isn't one of the common indictments against Randolph that he has been traded for 'nothing'? Well, Pau Gasol was traded for nothing pretty recently as well. He just happened to go to a really good team.

In all likelihood Zach Randolph's reputation as a 'loser' will continue to be burnished with the hapless Grizzlies - even though there probably aren't five players in the entire league who you could put on the roster to make them into winners. What would happen if you added Pau Gasol to the Memphis roster? Oh wait, we already know the answer.

Look at the teams Zach has been on: the Blazers decided to rebuild while he was there. Pippen retired, Sabonis retired, Wallace was traded. Eventually, the new Blazer's management leveled a scathing critique at the old Blazer's management by trading away Randolph and his bloated contract for nothing. Did Brandon Roy want him gone? Evidently, although I'm not really sure one should accept that as proof positive that Zach was a terrible teammate - let's see, the rookie second leading scorer on the team wants the veteran leading scorer on the team traded? Couldn't possibly be an ulterior motive there, right?

At any rate, next stop is the Knicks - Isiah Thomas' Knicks, no less. So yes, by all means, let's blame Randolph and Randolph alone for the fact that New York won 23 games that season. Marbury, Curry, Jerome James and of course Isiah himself - those guys had nothing to do with it.

So it's off to LA - a team that was 2-12 when he joined them. Did he make them immediately better? Well, yes, as a matter of fact he did. But in the end, the season was already lost, and it certainly didn't help that Zach himself got hurt and missed 30 games.

I'm not being willfully naive here. I realize that Zach Randolph has significant short comings as a basketball player and as a teammate. He is a terrible and often disinterested defender, and I must assume that there is some fire amid all the smoke of off-court incidents. But in the end, his biggest liability in the NBA is his contract, and it's certainly not his fault that Portland rewarded him with a maximum deal knowing full well that he didn't play defense. Suddenly, a player who would be a godsend at a reasonable salary is an anchor. So it was clearly the right thing for the Clippers to trade him away in order to get out from under his mammoth contract - but make no mistake, the talent level of the team took a hit in the short run.

I hope that Zach has a good season in Memphis. I especially hope that he stays out of trouble. And for his sake, I hope that in two seasons, when he's a 29 year old free agent, that he signs a reasonable contract so that people can see past the fact that he's overpaid, and maybe look at what he does on the court.

3 recs | Comment 93 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Funny you bring this up...

Before the Clips traded Zach, I was actually apprehensive about them trading him. Trading a 20/10 guy (not to mention an insurance policy agiinst a bGriff flop) for qRich at this point would seem outright crazy to any sane man.

But now that he his gone, I fee like this weird weight has been lifted from the team. There are no guys in the locker room that give me an uneasy stomach (other than the thought of Baron wolfing down a box of twinkies during the shootaround).

The Clips got a clear cap and a clear conscious going into this season.

It’s probably just my usual preseason optimism….

Clippers Basketball.... It's Masochistic!

by Clipochistic on Jul 4, 2009 11:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Steve

Iverson did a few things apart from scoring 20 ppg. like he lead a pretty bad philly team into the finals. okay, the east was rather weak that year, but still, check that team out. and he is one of the leading scorers in NBA history, a 30, not a 20 point scorer. He was also responsible for philadelphia being a prominent team in the east for years. he was denver’"s leader in the years he was there. the team had problems before him as well as him. now he had a really ba year, as did all the pistons, and billups turned out to be great in denver, so the press and blogosphere everywhere is piling on AI, which is just crazy for me. anyway, the article was great but I wanted to point that out.

Libertarianism is just Anarchy for rich people

by Murcy on Jul 5, 2009 6:17 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Great tag line

And I agree about AI. He brought alot more than 20 ppg over the years.

by Jax on Jul 5, 2009 7:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Its true

He brought Miller to PHI. Then he brought Billups to DEN.

And of course he’s a central character in great moments in pop cultures like this.

And noone can ever take that body of work away from him.

by John R on Jul 5, 2009 5:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Murcy

Iverson will remain a Rohrschach test forever, no doubt. Thank goodness for him that he has that one Finals team (which, I think you will admit, is one of the bigger mysteries of the last 20 years in the NBA), who there would be little doubt about his legacy. Am I piling on? Sure, a little. And yes, he was a different level of scoring – but he was never particularly efficient at it. He just shot more than anyone else.

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 Jul 6, 2009 2:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But it contributed to wins. Can't really argue with the results no?

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 6, 2009 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The question to answer would be

Why did “it” only contribute to wins for such a short window?

I suspect the answer (get it?) is the addition of Mutombo was FAR more important than anything Iverson ever did.

by John R on Jul 6, 2009 3:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

how about let’s examine what the SIXERS did over the Iverson era rather than just jump to the conclusion that Allen Iverson was clearly the problem. he was the best player on the team for all the years he was on the team, you can’t throw everything on his 6’0" 165 lb shoulders.

let’s not forget how dismal the Sixers were before Allen Iverson. they had the 1st pick in the draft for a reason, much like the Clippers did this year. Blake Griffin will likely help this year, but is he going to immediately turn the franchise around? probably not. it will take a little time, and the Clippers need to get better as a whole too.

the Sixers were victims of terrible management for the past decade before the current regime took over a couple years ago. it’s a given that turmoil in the office means turmoil on the court, and the team was clearly hampered by the fact that terrible contracts were given to mediocre players year after year. it was not easy for the Sixers to get W’s with the teams they rolled out every season. Allen Iverson was and still is a great player- he wasn’t blessed with the body of a Lebron James, so there was only so much he could do himself. if he was 6’6", maybe he shoots a higher percentage because he’d get his shot off easier, maybe he plays better defense. who knows. i think we should just see it this way: given all of the circumstances, Allen Iverson turned out to be one hell of a basketball player, and there’s no doubt in my mind that he should be a Hall of Famer. the Sixers won many, many more games because of him than in spite of him, something that shouldn’t be overlooked.

by ghsu on Jul 6, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Who said problem?

“the Sixers won many, many more games because of him than in spite of him, something that shouldn’t be overlooked.”

Prove it, if you are so inclined. All I read were a bunch of excuses for Allen Iverson.

“it was not easy for the Sixers to get W’s with the teams they rolled out every season.”

And as all the players around him changed, one remained the same. Allen Iverson.

by John R on Jul 6, 2009 4:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"We're talking about practice."

Can you prove that the sixers were better without A.I.?

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 6, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Speechless once again

Why do I bother responding to this nonsense – I wonder if John R is Steve’s alter ego designed to increase page reads

Just kidding, Steve/John R ;-)

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 3:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

July 5th

Is probably a good day for a little cynicism. And this excellent post is a fine attack on received wisdom. Not sure how KA would respond, if this were part of the summit series, but I agree with everything you say here, aside from minor quibbles about throwing AI into the group, even though he probably deserves to be there.

It’s the Clippers, Steve!

The Ron Harper and Pau Gasol examples are classic. Memphis has added some new talent since Gasol was there, but I’m like you, I want to see how the Grizzlies do and how Zbo fares on that roster.

I was a big proponent of addition by subtraction in the Zbo trade: taking Tim Thomas away from MDSr’s inclination to use him instead of Steve Novak and others, and sending Mobley off so that the way was clear for Gordon to start and get big minutes. (I’m convinced now that the best lineup for the Clips pre-trade, with one Kaman-Camby injury, would have been Thornton PF-Mobley SF-Gordon SG, with Novak as the first sub.) But it’s funny how the new Zbo trade is immediate, and similar, addition by subtraction, with the added massive bonus of getting the trade exception and the cap space back. Whatever Zbo might have contributed—and he would have been productive—it’s SO much better for him not to be available, especially with MDSr still the coach. Managing Griffin’s introduction to the league and picking the right spots for a ZBo, with Kaman-Camby-DJordan-Novak available, would be a ridiculously high grade of coaching difficulty, especially when you’re trying to get a team to defend and score points, and you have all sorts of other moving parts that have never gelled together. This is clearly a simpler and much better solution.

But none of that is Zbo’s fault. As we started saying well before the trade, he’s a great fit in Memphis. I also hope he does well there—not so well that the Grizz move ahead of the Clips, but well enough to get recognition for his true value.

by citizen zhiv on Jul 5, 2009 9:01 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Let's see...

“He’s a great fit in Memphis”

I disagree. That team needs defense not scoring. They got Thabeet, which was a step in the right direction, but this is their big man corps now: Gasol, Thabeet, Warrick, Randolph, Carroll. I would have kept Gasol, Thabeet & Warrick; drafted someone other than Carroll and never traded for Randolph. They also can’t move anyone over to SF because Rudy Gay is there. This is their core team now: Gay, Mayo, Randolph, Gasol, Thabeet, Warrick, Conley, Carroll. These are the guys who will want to shoot a lot: Gay, Mayo, Randolph, Gasol.

Randolph’s major problem is that he can’t be effective without the ball, which is to say that he has to be the focus of the offense to score and is nothing on defense. He is a good offensive rebounder, but the problem is that he is rebounding his own missed shots a lot of the time. Elton Brand was usually cleaning up someone else’s terrible shot, not his own. This tells me that Randolph will probably hinder the development of their young players. Conley, Gay, Mayo & Gasol probably won’t benefit from Randolph being the “black hole” of Tennessee. It’ll be interesting though. I think Memphis could improve on their 24 wins, but i have a really bad feeling about that team.

by Jordinho on Jul 5, 2009 10:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Z-Bo definitely isn't all bad...

But that doesn’t change the fact that the Clippers made a good decision in trading him. I don’t dislike him because he’s a black hole, a cancer in the locker room or his huge contract. I just don’t think that his playing style fits well with the Clips. For him to be successful, he requires a lot of touches and isos, which detract from the team’s ability to run and be active. Also, his defensive shortcomings make him a liability on that end of the floor. With Blake Griffin, the team had a good enough reason to trade him based on his playing style. It just so happens that there are other positives as well.

There is also the argument that the team would be better with a 20/10 player and I wholeheartedly agree. However, I don’t think that the extra five to ten games that the Clippers would win because of Z-Bo next year would be worth more long term struggles. With their core of young talent, this is a team that has the potential to steadily improve. I’d rather see them lose a lot now if it meant that they were to have success in the future.

In short, Zach Randolph’s stint with the Clippers allowed me to see more of him than you get from SportsCenter. Yes, he’s got some problems, but he is truly a gifted player (at least on the offensive end of the floor). It would appear that the bad rap he gets is exaggerated. However, none of this changes the fact that I’m glad he’s gone.

"If a Clippers fan is reading a newspaper in his living room and the ceiling falls on him, he'll just shrug and move to another room." -Bill Simmons

by WestsideBrandon on Jul 5, 2009 11:01 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Randolph in Memphis

It will be interesting to see how he adapts to the Memphis situation, because OJ Mayo is definitely the leader of the team. If he can play 2nd banana, I think it’s probably a good thing for Memphis to push Rudy Gay down to the 3rd scorer. One fear is that ZBO will drag their running game down, but did prove to be as good or better than usually in the D’Antoni system last year.

For us, he really established a pecking order on offensive, which is one thing we needed. On the other hand, what we didn’t need was lackluster effort on D.

Without ZBO, our defense and team character undoubtedly takes a jump, though our offense becomes somewhat questionable. Who becomes our first option, 2nd? As geeked on Griffin as I am, I have no idea how his offensive game is going to translate. Where I think he has the will of a #1 option for us, he doesn’t appear to have the skill set to take on that role. EJ has some experience from last year as being the #1 option, but is that really him? We’ll have to see. What we really need is for BD to play to his potential, be a serious threat to score and create open looks both EJ, Griffin, and everyone else.

It’s crazy to think that if Jake Voskhul never threw that sucker punch to ZBO, we probably never would’ve won the lottery.

by ghost_ride on Jul 5, 2009 11:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Analysis of the ZBo trade from Memphis' perspective....

I’ve been scanning the Memphis sites for the past week to see if the fan and press backlash was so strong that it might sway the Grizz to reconsider the transaction (akin to Hedo’s change of heart) before July 8 when the trade becomes final. I think it’s a fair assessment of ZBo’s pros and cons for the Grizz. The user comments after the article are also interesting reading:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2009/jul/05/33-million-dollar-question/

Not sure whether posting protocol means this should be placed in a fan shot rather than here, but it’s 100% relevant to this discussion so I opted to post here. My apologies to SP if it needs to be moved.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein

by Another son of Mike Smith on Jul 5, 2009 12:53 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Great find.

I had looked for a Grizz blog to get fans reaction. Commenters seem optimistic.

by oneight on Jul 5, 2009 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Protocol

Either place would have been fine. As you say, it’s relevant here, so this is a great spot.

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 Jul 6, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good to know. Thanks.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein

by Another son of Mike Smith on Jul 6, 2009 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

my defense of zbo

during the open threads following the trade to bring zbo, I constantly commented how the guy worked on the block to get his shot off with little to no athletic ability. He has the softest touch around the rim I have ever seen in a big man with NO HOPS at all…he mesmerized me with his ability to grab offensive boards, amid traffic and a 3" vertical!

His defense left alot to be desired, and was disturbed by such horrible efforts on that end of the floor. I agree that the out-of-this-world contract is his ball-and-chain. I also can’t believe he is only 29 yrs old. He will certainly command at least the MLE in two years should his abilities not diminish.

Roger Sterling: I bet there were people in the Bible walking around, complaining about "kids today."
Don Draper: Kids today, they have no one to look up to. Cuz they're looking up to us.

by Lawler's Law on Jul 5, 2009 1:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

oh yea!

if only those soft hands could be surgically transplanted to Kaman 2.0!

Roger Sterling: I bet there were people in the Bible walking around, complaining about "kids today."
Don Draper: Kids today, they have no one to look up to. Cuz they're looking up to us.

by Lawler's Law on Jul 5, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha Ha Ha.

Even if those hands were surgically transplanted, its up to Kaman to actually learn how to use them.

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 5, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would you believe Kaman 1.71?

I would settle for Kaman giving the Clips 30-35 minutes, 12 points, 10 boards and 1.5 blocks per game, for a full season a la 05-06.

Ergo no need for the hand transplant. hehe..

He doesnt have the be ‘the MAN’, he just has to win his battle EVERY night. He has never really been a clutch scorer at the end of the game (he’s not a ‘killer’).

If we are calculating the individual parts, then we need Kaman to be Kaman 2.0… We will lose 50 plus games if we end up needing him as our ‘go to’ guy.

However, if we are working on the sum of the parts, Kaman 1.71 will definitely work. We have a really good shot if he doesnt have to be our focus.

Lets do a raindance/pray we get a single piece of a greater puzzle, and if we end up with more, it’s all gravy.. baby!

Besides he would look super funny being as white as he is with Zach’s hands… just my opinion..

Clippers Basketball.... It's Masochistic!

by Clipochistic on Jul 5, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

he’s only 27 actually.

zbo , if he was making 10 million a year would be fine. only portland was stupid enough to give him his deal which he took of course.

by hans007 on Jul 5, 2009 7:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Amen. If the Clipper don't strike gold in 2010 with a great FA, then this trade for Q will be a total bust.

Kaman is the true cancer on the team. We surgically removed the wrong part. I could have lived with Griffen at the 3 and share minute with Zach at the 4 until Zach’s contact expired,

Wade is going to re-sign with the Heat.

LeBron coming to the Clips just doesn’t seem like it will happen give the Knick’s interest, Cleveland’s interest to re-sign, and so forth.

Who else is left who is good enough and young enough to help at the 1 or the 3?

by Jerdog on Jul 5, 2009 4:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Joe Johnson

We have around a 20% chance of LeBron. If not, fall back on Johnson.

http://lucasnbablog.blogspot.com/

by LJ Hann on Jul 5, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah.

I like Wade better.

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 5, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And Bosh.

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 5, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

But we already have

Gordon and Griffin at those positions

http://lucasnbablog.blogspot.com/

by LJ Hann on Jul 5, 2009 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

They're both bad

We were lucky to get rid of one.

by Jax on Jul 5, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

First time, I ever heard Kaman as the cancer

I think he can ineffective a lot, but not a cancer on the team. I don’t think Griffin is a 3, it was more of a dream.

I think Joe Johnson is the next best thing after Lebron, Wade and Bosh. It would probably save cash for the other young players.

by Qlippers on Jul 5, 2009 7:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

cancer is a bit strong for Kaman

you could justify it by saying that his lack of effort leads to others not trying hard which hurts the team but still I don’t see him as a real cancer to the team just a player who could be good but fails to put in the effort to come back from injuries or improve during summer instead of going fishing in Mexico.

In Gordon we trust

by bestclipfan on Jul 5, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What's the point of being an NBA player?

If you can’t go on vacation in the off season. I’d imagine most players take vacations in the off season as they should, and it doesn’t mean they aren’t dedicated.

Kaman’s foot injury was frustrating and is still somewhat of a mystery, but I don’t ever recall hearing anyone say that his effort was lacking prior to the foot injury. None of the Clipper veterans played hard at the end of the season, not even Camby.

by ClipCat on Jul 5, 2009 8:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I noticed during the playoffs

Superman’s tendency to bring the ball down to waist (sometimes lower) when he was making a move on the block/caught a lob/offensive rebound…JVG brought it up several times and it reminded me of Kaman’s bad habit of doing this! It is so annoying! As opposed to Gasol who kept the ball up high in similar moves. Think Kaman was watching and learning? I hope so…

Roger Sterling: I bet there were people in the Bible walking around, complaining about "kids today."
Don Draper: Kids today, they have no one to look up to. Cuz they're looking up to us.

by Lawler's Law on Jul 5, 2009 11:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no he probably wasn't watching

he was probably fishing in Mexico or deer hunting in Michigan. I wonder if Kaman has even met Griffin yet.

In Gordon we trust

by bestclipfan on Jul 5, 2009 11:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes the hardest thing to do is correctly assign blame

To find the true root of a problem.

The eyes lie; memory fails; bias must be overcome.

One day Zach will land in the right spot for him and the labels will slide away, just like Gasol and Garnett before him.

by John R on Jul 5, 2009 5:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Typical nonsense

I can’t believe I’m even responding to this silliness. To equate .. . . whatever – it’s just not worth my time.

by Jax on Jul 5, 2009 7:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dementia unfolds

To comment that its not worth your time, but to actually comment…

I see again you have trouble understanding what I have written. Much like a dog and cat are both housepets and it can therefore be stated that they share characteristics, they are not actually equated.

I’m actually feeling bad about mocking so as your inadequacies all this time. I want to help. Have you considered a night school? Some classes in reading for comprehension might do you some good.

by John R on Jul 6, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No,

I don’t have trouble understanding what you have written. I do find it funny that someone who is as challenged as you are continue to denigrate others. Note that I continue to refrain from the obvious.

And I will continue to ask you whether you play the game of basketball. All you have to do is answer that question and I’ll leave you alone.

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Completely off-topic, but it will be a grand test indeed

I don’t like to talk about myself because this isn’t the John R blog, its a Clippers fan focused community. That being said, except for Jax’s unhealthy obsession, there is no reason to talk about me. This is completely off-topic, so I apologize for Jax everyone, but this is too good to pass up.

The answer is: yes. I play the game of basketball.

The next time you respond to one of my comments, fanposts, fanshots, or other, either through a direct response or allusion to what I have written, you will be making a (further) liar out of yourself having gained nothing other than the fact that I own a basketball and occasionally go to one or more basketball courts alone, in a group , or planning on meeting others and play the game of basketball which may or may not include structured league play.

I would like to say that I do admire your willingness to sacrifice your obsession for the good of the community.

Starting…now.

by John R on Jul 6, 2009 2:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

John R, why not take the advice of the poster a few posts ago and just

shut up

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well that didn't take long

That’s crass even for you Jax.

What happened to “I’ll leave you alone”? You know I can refrain replying to your comments. I do it every day. And here you promised to do the same and barely made it 48 minutes.

Obsess much?

by John R on Jul 6, 2009 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Once again, you've misunderstood what I've said

If you are going to continue to denigrate me or anyone else on this board, or anywhere else, I and others will continue to ask you to stop. Crass indeed.

By the way, when I asked if you’d played basketball, what I meant was organized basketball, not whether you went outside and shot a basket once in a while. Have you ever played organized basketball?

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tracing this particular thread...

It started with a completely salient comment from John R making a point almost identical to one I made in my original post. You, Jax, sputtered something about ‘typical nonsense’ – not sure why you waited until John R said it rather than calling it nonsense when I said it in the post, but it would seem to have something to do with your relationship with John.

Stop it with the basketball stuff. We’re not going to decide who’s correct based on who progressed further in their own basketball career.

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 Jul 6, 2009 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, but there is a difference IMO

You suggested above that Pau might someday have obtained a loser label. John R’s post is based on the assumption that they already had or that Pau was similar to Zbo before going to the Lakers. Which is just not the case for many, many reasons.

I don’t believe you mentioned KG and John R put him into that same camp.

What you said wasn’t nonsense.

These are typical of the rather strong statements made by John R that are not very logical in my view. The basketball statement comes from another thread where John R continually denigrated me and others (without any disapproval). I merely said that someone who talks like that and makes such outlandish statements probably never played the game in any organized way.

It helps when making pronouncements about basketball to have actually played the game IMO. Particularly when you are denigrating anyone who disagrees with you. So yes, I do think it’s relevant.

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

KG didn't have a loser label?

Well that’s just fiction. Google Garnett+loser+label and you will find plenty of posts about him shedding it with the Celtics. Its a rather obvious point. Funny thing is, I never thought Garnett was a loser. Or Pau for that matter. But plenty did. But they were popular memes.

But then, since you can’t even keep a offer which you willingly put forth, I’m not sure why anyone would try to convince your obviously closed mind of anything.

Do you play basketball? This is the intellectual equivalent of “let’s take it outside”. Childish then and childish now.

by John R on Jul 6, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Let's take it outside"

isn’t too childlish. A bit cause you can’t bust someones face in on the spot, but when a face needs to be busted, eff him up! Just saying that I still get in fights sometimes.

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 6, 2009 4:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not only that, but

I really think that John R shoulnd’t be denigrating others on this board. I didn’t suggest the basketball thing this time, but I did in the past.

People like John R think they’re tough when they are lurking in their basements anonymously. Let’s see how he acts in public. I suspect he’d run like any bully. Which is why he’s avoiding the issue and trying to deflect by calling names.

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have to admit that

John R, I know its not required, but it wouldnt hurt to be a bit nicer. While the stats are nice to throw out in a way to prove your opinions, they’re not always facts. At the same time, it’d be nice to be respectful to respect the opinions of others.

With that said, Jax, you needa.. get off that basketball game. LOL. Never going to happen. Never was going to, and never will.

Anyways, I just butted into another John R./ Jax conversation -I really need to stop and mind my business…

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 6, 2009 4:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best to stay out of it

Let them do their thing.

The fact that they’re back at it is actually a good sign, because it shows that the Clippers are interesting.

JohnR is very smart and knows his stuff. Strong viewpoint, backs it up, uncompromising, and it’s great that he’s posting frequently and speculating on the Clips and the future. It’s all interesting.

Jax is very acute too and he makes great points when you engage him in a real discussion. He has a more supple view of the game, but he has his own hobby horse (I suppose you could say that JohnR’s stat fetish, if that’s what you want to call it, and me I got nothing against a healthy fetish, if there is such a thing, is his hobby horse), which is a darkly cynical view of DTS and Dunleavy.

So it’s oil and water. Kind of amazing, in its own way. And in the end a relatively healthy (and certainly harmless) expression of the yin and yang of the Nation.

We’ll all be together in the promised land.

by citizen zhiv on Jul 6, 2009 7:11 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, I guess your right Zhiv.

Spot on.

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 6, 2009 7:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nice Zhiv...

I too, learned the hard way, that there is no profit in getting in between John R and Jax.
But you’re right, it’s nice to see them back again, bickering like old ladies. The thing I’ve always found fascinating is that they don’t really sport opposing points of view. John R is an empiricist, he doesn’t believe it unless it’s provable on a statistical level. And Jax mocks John R’s POV. But Jax is the ultimate pragmatist… to him it’s all about wins and losses… the ultimate stat.
And oh yes, that promised land thing. Love that. We, they, are all in this together. It’s the beauty of the Nation.

by swamigusto on Jul 6, 2009 8:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

in the end they probably both like eachother

it’s like they say in elementary school if someone is spending so much time bickering with someone else then they like each other if they didn’t then they would just ignore each other. But at least they always keep it some what clean and don’t start sending “personal attacks” they just don’t agree.

In Gordon we trust

by bestclipfan on Jul 6, 2009 9:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have quite an ability to sum people up

Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)

by mikey p on Jul 6, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is that good or bad?

by swamigusto on Jul 7, 2009 8:34 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dunno

Depends how it’s used, I guess.

Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)

by mikey p on Jul 7, 2009 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've met John R.

Cool guy. Real laid back.

It’s hard to get a sense of someone based on their message board persona. And it is pointless to take it personally. Nothing that anyone says (types) here or anywhere else in cyberspace will get me upset. These are not real relationships (not that I don’t enjoy reading your back and forths).

Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)

by mikey p on Jul 6, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

p yekim. (:

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 6, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

?

Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)

by mikey p on Jul 7, 2009 8:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I second the ?

Wha?

by swamigusto on Jul 7, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a loser in the sense of Zbo

Who was traded because of his perceived cancerous nature and off the court antics, his selfish black hole offense and his lack of defense.

Neither Gasol nor KG could possibly be compared to him for either their game or off the court behavior.

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey!!

You just quoted me!!!

http://lucasnbablog.blogspot.com/

by LJ Hann on Jul 7, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK, cancer may be a little strong because nobody takes Kaman seriously anyway because he is a space kadet.

Let’s just say that he gives the Clippers a case of hypoglycemia with a touch of ADD (literally and unfortunately for both him and the Clippers).

Joe Johnson? Probably the most realistic and good pick. He will be 29 years old when he signs his 2010 contact. Isn’t that the age Baron was when he signed last year? Hmmmmmm……..

Bosh? Doesn’t represent the same position and in similar way as Zach (inside/outside)?, He does play more D and is a little longer, but not stronger, to play the 5? He probably is our best and most likely FA option in 2010, but where we need the most help will be at the 1 or the 3.

by Jerdog on Jul 5, 2009 11:07 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Joe Johnson first

And I don’t think Johnson has ever had any major injuries to show that it may show up w/ old age

by Qlippers on Jul 6, 2009 12:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I am also missing Zach

He was a bruiser and a very effective scorer. I was drooling over the thought that Zach would be backing up Griffin and totally dominating the second unit of every team in the league. His loss will hurt especially when the inevitable injuries occur. We are banking everything on Griffins production and especially his durability. Randolph was an NBA gem and he will be missed – regardless of his obvious downside. I hope we get real value for the TPE otherwise I think we may have cheaped out yet again. Lets hope the NBA gods are finally smiling down on us.

I am not sure who we should target with our 2010 cash. Wade, Lebron and JJ are the main targets but I am not convinced any will come and even if they belong on our team. I really think we need Battier or G.Wallace to complete our team. Not sure if there are any glue guys on the market but we should be making attempts to secure these players now even at the risk of a big FA next year. I think two or three cheap FA this year and next will help complete our team. Lets not overpay for a star next year when we can throw some bucks around right now in a tight market and get real value.

by citizen bob on Jul 6, 2009 1:02 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

If we would just use some of the money

to buy out MDSr and retain a competent GM / coach, we would actually be in the 2010 sweepstakes.

Ah, the paradox of it all.

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

this makes a lot of sense

there are going to be some pretty nice goods falling off of trucks at minimal prices this year.

it’s already happening with the TurkeyLou signing in TOR. Maybe the Lee signing forces some addititonal ‘waves’. LO, more ‘waves’. We might get seasick.

next year it will be a seller’s market with 15-20 teams competing to overpay for services, most with better karma to offer in addition to the same money. even the second tier guys are getting overpaid next year.

Clippers Basketball.... It's Masochistic!

by Clipochistic on Jul 6, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To think this year has been the year of the glue guy

Already we have seen absolute bargains for Ariza, Artest, Turkalou, Marion, Lee and a few others. These guys at MLE would be much better than most of next years crop both in chemistry and financially. MDSr sacrificed Randolph and has no excuse for not immediately improving the team with his newfound capspace. I will keep my fingers crossed.

by citizen bob on Jul 6, 2009 10:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I just read that Boston is courting Grant Hill

Apparently he is only worth the biannual exception. Surely we can compete for his services. I sure would feel better with an aging Grant Hill manning the backup SF position.

by citizen bob on Jul 6, 2009 11:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

this would be pretty good

we are prolly pretty close to be able to offer this type of salary.

the mentor aspect is huge here. this move could prove to aid in the maturation process of thornton.

hill could teach him the nuances as well as provide overall leadership that still lacks.

but, i guarantee he wont play for the clips, rumor is he is looking to win a championship. while i have hope, i have mostly doubt that the clippers would be perceived as a team that has a chance to do so.

Clippers Basketball.... It's Masochistic!

by Clipochistic on Jul 6, 2009 9:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Correct...

Hill would have no interest in the Clippers.

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 Jul 6, 2009 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

some clarity is needed

just so we understand one thing. Zach had to go. For several reasons. He is not an older player, like Camby, who has about 2 years and he’s out, were it would not be an issue with him coming off the bench this year and head on, Zach is in his prime. Zach can not, realistically, place center. Blake can not, yet, truely play the small. Zach and Blake can be on the court in mixed scenarios for smaller sets of minutes.

Zach also has a contract and a reputation that makes him harder, even considering the gem-like stats, to move, making a gem look a little like limestone. With those two factors we would not get equal value in return (even consider what we gave to get him). And to let him stay around with that level on contract and that much henderance of his competition for his position, along with his lack of defence on a team in desperate need of a defensive boost, Zach was clearly the logical choice. If his contract was much more reasonable, he’s a keeper through and through.

Kaman you would like to trade for his inconsitancies. He is easily moveable. Half of the league would love to have him, I’m sure. But if Kaman goes you start Camby…. who do you start at pf in that case; Zach? and force Balke to the 3 or the bench. when camby is done the next year, DeAndre replaces him, who is right now a defensive rebounding center not so much a low post threat.

Kaman, currently, is the neccessary evil, until his value goes up to equal a good return, which really might not return what we need…. a scorer down low.

by Takebb909 on Jul 6, 2009 11:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Clarity

You don’t have to make the case to me. I said in the post that it was clearly the right thing to do.

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 Jul 6, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

indeed

…it was more for those who are doubting or disagreeing for even those who read but not post.

by Takebb909 on Jul 6, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would love to trade Kaman but

I agree with you that he has a more defined role to play on this team now that Zach has gone. The question really concerns our weakest position – now the SF position. If we have the kind of injuries we have had the past two years, Al will need to play more PF and we will have a huge hole in the SF position. Against teams like Denver, we need a SF glue guy now if we wish to make the playoffs. What happens if LeBron and JJ don’t come to the Clippers next year? Who do we go after then? Whoever it is it probably won’t be a glue guy like we desperately need. Our team is starting to show promise right now and a Tayshun Prince, Grant Hill or even Ariza type is worth risking a shot at Lebron and Wade. Just my opinion though.

by citizen bob on Jul 6, 2009 11:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Quick question

Can we use the TPE on a free agent even though we are over the cap?

by citizen bob on Jul 6, 2009 11:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No...

It’s not space for signing an FA – only for a trade. So we could use it on an FA in a Sign and trade, where the player’s original team signs him first. That scenario gets a little complicated if the player gets a big raise, by base year compensation complications. But yes, all of this can be done over the cap, which is why it’s called an exception. You don’t need exceptions under the cap.

So, to sum up. We could sign a non BYC FA in a S&T based on the rules in the CBA using our TPE which is worth more than the MLE. Any questions?

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 Jul 6, 2009 3:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

new clippers forum

Moments ago, we created a special website for all Clipper fans to get together, and discuss the Los Angeles Clippers, and the rest of the NBA. Please check us out at http://www.LetsGoClippers.com and invite all your friends over!

by LetsGoClippers on Jul 6, 2009 12:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

ok...you got flagged...

fanshot, fanpost…that was enough….

Roger Sterling: I bet there were people in the Bible walking around, complaining about "kids today."
Don Draper: Kids today, they have no one to look up to. Cuz they're looking up to us.

by Lawler's Law on Jul 6, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree also. I don't think its nesissary to post these things that

most Clippers fan would even read.

Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!

by JackduhSun on Jul 6, 2009 2:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

its funny how everyone was dieing to get rid of Zach and now that we finally did now everyone wished he never left

by AtotheZ on Jul 6, 2009 1:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think everyone was “dieing” to get rid of ZBo. I think the post says it best. We needed a 20 and 10 guy after David Falk’s Brand scam. ZBo fit the bill, albeit coming with a contract that would choke a horse. Imagine what the Clips — already one of the most impotent offenses in the league — would have done without ZBo’s scoring last year. With 20-20 hindsight, one can say it was going to be a lost season anyway so why overpay for Brand’s replacement, but at the time no one was expecting the injuries we got hit with or having a fat and unmotivated Diddy show up.

At this point, it would’ve been nice luxury to keep ZBo for another year so that BG could be brought along slowly and we would still have a scoring punch down low. Face it, we will be weaker next year due to this trade. But the BG pick and freeing up money for a good 2010 free agent class was probably worth the short term diminution. So I am sorry to see ZBo go, but not that sorry.

by benoit benjamin's two left shoes on Jul 6, 2009 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're missing the point...

The original post certainly is not taking the position that I wish he never left. In fact, it’s stated quite clearly, this trade was the right thing to do. But the tendency is to bash the guy leaving town, and I’d seen a lot of that, which felt like piling on. He deserves some praise – he’s a truly gifted scorer and rebounder.

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 Jul 6, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't understand the A.I. comparison...

I understand the point of the post is to establish Zach Randolph’s value and raise attention to the fact that the Clippers are losing a gifted player. However, the cheapening of Iverson’s career to do so doesn’t sit right with me.

People forget now, but Allen Iverson in his prime was one of the most unstoppable forces we’ve ever seen. He’s a sure-fire hall of famer, and deserves a much better label than “just a 20 ppg scorer”.

by D.J. Foster on Jul 6, 2009 10:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

It was probably misguided

Given the amount of push back AI’s inclusion in the post has engendered, given that he’s not the focus of the post, I certainly didn’t do myself a service by including his name. My point of course is that many offensive-minded players are rewarded with All Star appearances and all pro selections – but some are not. It’s interesting.

Is more than a 20 ppg scorer? Sure, in that he averaged 30 on a few occasions. Will he enter the hall of fame based on his defense, work ethic, or locker room presence? Certainly not.

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 Jul 6, 2009 10:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Um, without looking at stats, I can say

that he averaged over 2 steals a game for his career (top 3 in the league in steals multiple years – steals are generally considered to be a defensive stat), 25 ppg plus, over 7 assists, 3-4 boards, 80% free throws and alot of free throws a game, hardly ever injured, played huge minutes, etc. And he took a team featuring no one else to the NBA finals. All in a career lasting well over a decade. Of course, stats aren’t everything :-)

Also won the MVP and had a terrific work ethic. He might not have enjoyed practice, however, if that’s what you’re talking about with the work ethic reference.

by Jax on Jul 6, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs