Is GMMDsr making the same mistake over again?

by cantthinkofagoodname on Aug 18, 2009 3:12 PM PDT Comment 17 comments

A few months ago while I sat in the San Jose airport, I read an article on clipsnation detailing all the excuses the Clippers had last year. If one had to sum that post up in three words, it could be narrowed down to injuries, conditioning and chemistry. (Ok, four words if you count the “and”, but who does that?). Assuming the players have a relatively injury free season and arrive at training camp in shape (a minor miracle by clipper standards) that still leaves one issue unresolved: chemistry.

There were 5 returning players (1/3 of the team) at the start of training camp a year ago Cuttino Mobley and Tim Thomas were both traded for Randolph and Collins shortly into the season after the clippers dug themselves a hole in the standings, while paul davis was cut mid-season and his roster spot used so the clippers could make money off luxury tax teams. I’m not all that interested in transactions that happened mid-season though; it’s more interesting that the Clippers added 10 new players before training camp. I’m still struck by the quote in the article linked above where GMMDsr said how the roster turnover became “insurmountable” for his team to overcome, even though he’s the one who assembled the team.

This year, the clippers have added 5 new players, with a possible 6th still up in the air. I’m not saying these are bad moves by GMMDsr, but I think that qualifies as another roster turnover when possibly over 1/3 of the team is new. Isn’t this the same sort of roster turnover we saw last year? Will chemistry be a problem again? Will the work ethic of the young guys continue once the season starts and they begin to play back to back games in different time zones? Thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i dont think its roster turnover

…its more like adding depth

i think someone said it before that changing of role players doesn’t impact chemistry as much as changes to the starting line up.

this coming year we have carry overs in the starting line up at all positions except PF, by which Griffin is a better chemistry/character fit then Zach

by KidJustin on Aug 18, 2009 3:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

There is a big diffence between this year and last year

first of all there were much more new players last year 10 (or 9 if you don’t count Hart). Also the starting lineup was completely changed last year with only Kaman staying in the starting lineup but he was gone most of the season. This year Dunleavy has only added 5 new players and all of them; with the exception of Griffin, are just role players and won’t start (although Butler could start but Thornton would still probably get more minutes then him). It is a big difference and unless we experience a ton of injuries the small roster turnover shouldn’t hurt the team. Hell the Cavs changed there team more then us this season and no one is saying that it will hurt there team.

In Gordon we trust

by bestclipfan on Aug 18, 2009 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Or you know...

Maybe it just shows that the team was making a BS excuse to try to rationalize an embarrassing 19 win season?

On the flip side, a 19 win team probably warrants a roster make-over. I do agree that for the most part, it’s about how many new guys there are on the team playing big minutes, not just how many new roster spots there are. Of the 8 or so guys who will play big minutes, only Butler and Griffin are new, whereas last year we lost our main guy, and added 3 new players to start (Baron, EJ and Camby) and then added another one (Z-Bo) later on.

I really think the bottom line is that Baron and Dun never got on the same page last year. Baron is the focal point of the offense and he has to be in line with the coach. The hope is that this year he will be, which will make all the difference in the world.

by madglove on Aug 18, 2009 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

this years different...

were adding mostly role players, outside of griffin and possibly butler, and they know that. not too mention we’ll have everyone together since camp, which is a benefit we did not have last year. remember, zach came over 15 games into the season, which is just before ej earned the starting role(coinciding with mobley being shipped to NY). this year the lineups should be more set, with conditioning being more of a concern to me than player turnover. basically if baron’s back, this team should take off with him.

by krapper11 on Aug 18, 2009 3:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

The alternative would be to stand pat

Ya, I thought so.

by John R on Aug 18, 2009 4:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

What does "ya" mean

Is that some sort of internet language that only true bloggers use?

by Jax on Aug 18, 2009 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

the myth of the starters.

Many of you have suggested the Clippers aren’t changing the starting line-up anymore than last season. Unfortunately that’s just not the case, just look at the box scores. Last year before the Zach Randolph trade, the Clippers started many games with only 2 changes: the 1 and the 4. Cat Mobley, Al Thornton and Chris Kaman had all been starters and holdovers from the year before. Heck, even Tim Thomas started a few games at the 4. This year we’re looking at a definite change at the 4 and a possible change at the 3. So that’s 2 changes from last year and 2 changes for this year.

Not to burst anyone’s bubble, but as many of you pointed out, this is a 19 win team. Why are the expectations so high if all they added was depth? Just call me the antithesis of Z-hivian optimism.

Also, John R, you missed my point entirely. I’m not saying these are bad moves GMMDsr made, I asking how it will affect chemistry on a team where the major problem from the year before by GMMDsr’s own admission was an inability to get all the new players from different systems on the same page.

by cantthinkofagoodname on Aug 18, 2009 5:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You can't just marginalize "1 and the 4"

All positions aren’t created equal. You’re talking about the most important position on the floor in the 1, particularly when you’re bringing in a former all-star at that position, and at the 4, changing a guy who was the focal point of the team for many years. It’s not as simple as 2 out of the 5 positions.

That’s like questioning why the Jazz were so different after “just” losing the 1 and the 4…John Stockton and Karl Malone.

by madglove on Aug 18, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Positions are created equal,

Players and coaches aren’t. I will concede that in CMDsr’s offense, the 4 is probably the most important and much of his playbook is probably built around EB because he was the franchise player for a long time. If you saying that you can change who starts at the 2 and 5 because they’re less important I would have to disagree. You can have a fantastic 1 but if he doesn’t have a 2 or a 5 to pass it to they’re not going to be a good team.

Each position is important and a change in the starting lineup even at one position can change a team for good or bad.

by cantthinkofagoodname on Aug 18, 2009 6:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s like questioning why the Jazz were so different after "just" losing the 1 and the 4…John Stockton and Karl Malone.

Regardless of position, they were both HoF caliber players. Hard to lose that much talent.

Seattle was much worse when they lost Rashard Lewis and Ray Allen, a 2/3 combo.

Certain positions are highlighted in offenses (Sloan does highlight the 1 and 4), but saying one is more important than another rings hollow.

"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.

by Cablinasian on Aug 19, 2009 3:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty funny - John R defending nonexistent attacks on GMMDSr's moves

The reality is folks that as madglove says BD and MDSr need to get on the same page. They got lucky in the draft, that’s the sole reason for the optimism this year. MDSr did also bring in Butler, but that’s not a huge change.

The one thing MDSr can’t change is his ability to coach. That issue must be resolved. The reason BD and MDSr didn’t get along is that BD doesn’t respect the guy. He promised uptempo and didn’t deliver. Is BD right? Depends on your perspective. Think things are going to change? Who knows. Will be interesting no doubt.

by Jax on Aug 18, 2009 6:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

A few points...

1 – It was clearly an excuse. You make changes if they make sense. You don’t avoid them for the sake of stability. Stability is not an end unto itself.

2 – I don’t think you can take the beginning of the season roster – the ‘excuse’ was total changes, including the Randolph trade. Even so, it was really three new starters at the beginning of the season. Thornton was not the starting 3 in 07-08 – Maggette was.

So I agree with the general sentiment in the comments that the changes are not unwarranted. We’re talking about one starter (the first overall pick in the draft, mind you), three guys to provide quality depth and Madsen in the role of ‘locker room guy.’ I’ll take 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

by Steve Perrin on Aug 18, 2009 8:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In response:

1. There’s no doubt it was an excuse, but it is an excuse I think has merit. I’m also not advocating that the clippers should do (or should have done) nothing. I’m merely pointing out that it’s an obvious contradiction for GMMDsr to claim just a few months ago that roster turnover played a major part in last season’s disaster, yet add 5 (maybe 6) new players this year. Again, I think they were all good moves and do provide quality depth.

2. Yes, three new starters, 13 new players. I think the roster before training camp last year serves as a better benchmark to compare the roster changes of this summer to because we have no idea if there will be a substantial trade during the season like the Randolph trade was a year ago. Yes al thornton only started 31 games in his rookie year (I think out of position a lot too), but I think he was widely considered around these parts as maggetrte’s replacement as the starting three.

I’m just trying to lower some expectations around here a little bit. If having so many new players played a role in the disorganization of last year, than it could have the same effect this year as well (maybe not as much though). Griffin will be a great player and I like to solid depth, but I’m not convinced we’re going to be a playoff team next year. I hope I’m wrong in my assumption that the Clippers are a 32-37 win team. Here’s to the 10th pick next year!

(BTW maybe i should have had a better title for my fanpost, It sounds more sensationalistic than the point I was attempting to make. lol)

by cantthinkofagoodname on Aug 18, 2009 9:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Blake Griffin = Chemistry Creator

I think the chemistry will be created when Blake Griffin starts tearing up the league. Both the young guys and the older guys will start looking up to him… and if that doesn’t happen, then we’re screwed anyway!

'Cause how you play, is how you'll be remembered. PLAY LOUD!

by CLiPPz WeRD 12 on Aug 19, 2009 2:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

what should we expect from Griffin his rookie season?

im going with 32min 14ppg, 9rpg, .8stls, .6blks, 4asts
roy

this is my extremely conservative opinion

by big0lbad on Aug 19, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

4 assists is a bit much to expect from a rookie big man. Chris Webber is one of the best passing 4s of all time and averaged 3.6 assists in 32 minutes per game his rookie year. Griffin is not the passer that Webber was.

"If the Lakers are Hollywood, then we are South Central." - Clipper fan.

by Cablinasian on Aug 19, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs