Clippers Waive Mark Madsen
by Steve Perrin on Aug 21, 2009 3:39 PM PDT
in News
56 comments
Well, every time I think I have a good handle on things, something happens to prove otherwise. I didn't think they would do it, but today the Clippers waived Mark Madsen.
We've mentioned multiple times that both Madsen and Ricky Davis were decent candidates to be waived if the team needed another roster spot. Madsen, who plays a position where the Clippers are deep and talented, is arguably the better choice for the waiver sire, since Ricky plays the wing where the Clippers are a little thinner. On the other hand, Madsen is considered the ultimate 'locker room guy' while Ricky is... um... not consider the ultimate 'locker room guy.' So it's pretty clear that GMMDsr values basketball more highly. Who knows? Maybe Ricky's knees are really feeling good and he can contribute this season they way we hoped he would last season.
I don't think the money factored in. Madsen makes a litlte more ($2.8M versus $2.4M), but it's really the replacement cost, not the salary that matters. So whereas you might intellectually think waiving Madsen is 'wasting' more salary, the roster spot will be filled by a new salary, and that's the one that matters. The $5.2M for Madsen plus Davis was a sunk cost for the season.
(I'm assuming this was a straight waiver and that no buy out was involved.)
It's worth repeating the value that Mark Madsen had on the roster. His $2.8M expiring contract was a nice trade chip for deals with teams looking to clear 2010 cap space. Now, I've been cognizant for awhile that the Clippers actually have more 2010 expriing deals than they could possibly use - Ricky, Camby, Smith, Collins and now Butler all fall into that category. So they don't lose much by not having Madsen's contract on that list. What the lose is a body that they didn't really need (obviously). So the idea of parlaying Madsen and Ricky Davis into a good player making $6M per was pretty attractive - and that's the one thing the Clippers lose here (in addition to the 'locker room guy' thing.
More importantly, this signals that the team has designs for the roster spot, above and beyond Steve Novak. It likely means that Novak will eventually sign with the team, but it also means that they have an available spot if GMMDsr is to stick to his usual MO of starting the season with 14 players under contract. Does this mean an offer sheet to Ramon Sessions is eminent imminent? Or do they have someone else on the radar? Stay tuned.
0 recs |
56 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
"it's pretty clear that GMMDsr values basketball more highly."
I’ve always thought this was his downfall. GMMDsr seems to have a fairly good eye for talent, but doesn’t pay enough attention to fit or intangibles. That’s why it was no surprise that he traded for Z-Bo when most other GMs wouldn’t touch him.
That was his problem in Portland where his teams eventually devolved into the Jailblazers (though he wasn’t the GM then).
This year’s team seems to have better chemistry and more good character guys and I’m disappointed to see Madsen go. Having said that, good lockerroom guys are only so valuable when they aren’t good enough to get on the court at all. I just hope Neil Olshey has more of an eye on intangibles than GMMDsr does.
by madglove on Aug 21, 2009 3:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe we can sign Madsen
into our spirit squad?
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 Aug 21, 2009 5:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours
by BoulderDodger on Aug 21, 2009 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This definitely is the precursor to something else they have in mind…perhaps the AI/Sessions drama is coming to an end?
by banandy on Aug 21, 2009 4:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Domain is www.clipsnation.com
now I’m really confused.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Aug 24, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm...
That should be ‘imminent’ – likely to occur at any moment.
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 21, 2009 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question Steve
Did it ever seem to you like Madsen didn’t have a future with the Clips? Like in quotes, press conferences, interviews, etc.?
Just trying to get an idea of whether they had considered keeping him but something came up, or whether this was always the plan.
by madglove on Aug 21, 2009 4:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Locker-room coach?
Halfway joking — if a ‘locker-room’ guy’s important, and it’s not essential that that guy actually get minutes, why not have a ‘locker-room coach’? Baseball has bench coaches. Sort of an intermediary/old hand role, sub-junior-assistant coach.
by pipedreams on Aug 21, 2009 4:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Videotape breakdowns I’d run would be a mix of Disney sports movies to get my guys pumped!
by banandy on Aug 21, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hahaha, gonna show some mighty duck videos??
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 Aug 21, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d rather have Ricky Davis waived before Mark.
by shoothoop on Aug 21, 2009 4:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Too bad
cause “if”, and thats a big if, we win the championship with Madsen on our bench, most likely he would’ve done is sexy dance. Too bad he didn’t do his sexy dance coming back into LA.
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 Aug 21, 2009 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
any day
i was looking forward to seeing crazy legs come in when we’re up 20 with 3 minutes to go
I'm nobody's fool, least of all yours
by BoulderDodger on Aug 21, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like Ricky
While Ricky didn’t do much on the court last year, he was never really a problem. If you followed him on the bench he was always the first guy up cheering the guys one the court. While on the court he was also the first guy to run over and help a guy off of the floor.
by Hooch20 on Aug 21, 2009 4:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Im sorry but the guys a douche. Im glad hes gone
by Sam50 on Aug 21, 2009 5:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Have you seen the guy? I mean the little dance he did with the Lakers, come on. The guy isn’t even worth paying he bring absolutely nothing to the court, he may apparently be a “locker room” guy but that’s an expensive motivator.
by Sam50 on Aug 22, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't blame you
I used to think the same. But when Madsen came over to Clippers, I had to embrace the guy. I knew how much he sucked on the court, and how much I didn’t want to see him on the floor, but I realized that Madsen was probably a really nice guy. While I used to think signing him to any team is kind of pointless, it’d be nice to have our own bench coach. (:
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 Aug 22, 2009 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh. You were talking about his lack of basketball skill. I thought you were questioning his character.. which is what I would assume when you call someone a “douche”
by shoothoop on Aug 22, 2009 9:32 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know when you just don’t like a guy? Just the way the guy carries on seems to rub me the wrong way, don’t read to much into it mate.
by Sam50 on Aug 23, 2009 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get it
Let’s say the Clips re-sign Novak and then get Ramon Session/Iverson/whoever, which’d put them up at 14 players. If they kept Madsen, then instead they’d have 15, and if some other good player came along, couldn’t they have waived Madsen at that point? Yes, Dunleavy likes 14 players on the roster, but they’re paying for Madsen either way. Like it’s basically a choice between 14 players and paying around $60 million in salaries, or having Madsen be your 15th player purely for his “locker room presence” and paying the exact same $60 mill. Steve, is there some rule as to when you’re allowed to waive a player? Like Madsen’s salary is fully guaranteed (versus say Bruce Bowen with the Bucks a month ago), so it seems useless to get rid of him. I mean I don’t think his presence will make-or-break the team, but if keeping him for now wouldn’t have cost any more plus we’d still be able to get the 2 free agents we want, what’s the point?
-Alex
by FullyClips.com on Aug 21, 2009 5:44 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think that this waiving could strictly fall under
Dunleavy’s ego/ criteria. His decision of wanting 14 rather than 15 would probably be the biggest factor into this. Don’t quote me on this though. We have to wait for the great Steve Almighty.
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 Aug 21, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's kind of mean
to hold onto a player, while the player himself knows he could be gone at any second if something comes up. Yes, organizations take players’ feelings into account too.
That said, i don’t see what the damage would have been in keeping him until the roster situation was settled and 2 more guys were signed and delivered.
by d2s4ui1 on Aug 21, 2009 10:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a good point...
I had the same thought.
As far as I know, there is no financial difference to the team if they now enter the season with14 players versus if they had kept Madsen and entered the season with 15. A full guaranteed contract is a fully guaranteed contract.
There are a few reasons I can think of why you might go ahead and waive him now. (1) as a courtesy to the player, to let him try to catch on with another team before training camp (as citizen d2s4ui1 mentions below). (2) related to one, it’s possible there was a buy out involved here and Madsen gave some money back, but that’s not the way it was reported. (3) maybe MDsr thinks it will be better for team chemistry to go into camp with the group he expects to be there. Having him take the 15th spot isn’t a financial burden, and there’s no financial reason you can’t waive him when you need that spot. But does it do more damage than good to have him around for a few months, and then waive him when you want to give some D-League guy a 10 day contract in January? If he really is a locker room presence and a great teammate, it could have an adverse affect if he’s waived in season. So maybe it’s better to do it now.
Those are just some ideas. But in general, you raise a good point. There’s no specific reason to waive him to get down to 14 – you can carry 15 into the season and in this case, as far as I know, it costs the same. Having said all that, it’s possible that MDsr has designs on 3 more players and plans to have 15 on the roster even without Madsen, but I doubt 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 21, 2009 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a little unclear on something...
I feel like I should know this, but I’m fuzzy in late August… but when you waive a player does his salary come off the cap? I understand you still have to pay him, but might this be a payroll maneuver? Following that, there’s no difference between a waiver and a buyout regarding your payroll is there? A $3M salary is $3M against the cap even if you buy the player out for less… right?
Finally, Steve, you only leave out one possibility in all this… that the Clippers might not carry 14 players at all. A lot of teams are in heavy cost-cutting mode this year… and are considering only carrying 13 players. As you said, Madsen is a fixed cost… you’re paying him anyway. But, as in other industries, are there other, ancillary costs involved? It might sound silly but are there pension, health care fringes, travel expenses… that kind of thing? I’m not sure where that money comes from… but even that might add up to a couple of hundred thousand dollars over a season… dropping an extra hundred grand on a player that is never going to see the floor might just be bad business, especially when you’re almost definitely going to need his spot for flexibility later.
by swamigusto on Aug 22, 2009 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you waive a player
his salary doesn’t come off the cap.
If a player is bought-out, the bought-out amount stays on the payroll not his original salary. Although it’s still distributed over the same # of years. So if a guy was gonna make $20 mill over his last 2 years and instead agreed to a $10 mill buyout, then for the next 2 years his salary would count as $5 mill on the payroll.
That being said, the Clips are under the salary cap, so even if Madsen was bought out rather than waived, it’d lower the payroll a bit but that wouldn’t really matter salary-tax-wise.
However, your final comment is probably true that there are lots of fringe benefits that perhaps add up which the Clips might save. I doubt health care is a fringe, but like maybe they wouldn’t have to pay for an extra hotel room for away games. Or give out the per diems for food & stuff when they travel. Although maybe even stuff like that is built into contracts and waived players still get that per diem type of money. It’s an interesting point.
by FullyClips.com on Aug 25, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But will Madsen find another team?
I dunno if I buy #1 ‘cuz in this economy and with Madsen’s uh, athletically challenged body, it seems highly unlikely that another NBA team will sign him. Also #3 doesn’t seem like a great excuse either because if Madsen does in fact become such a huge part of the locker room chemistry, then we could always waive some other player in the last year of their contract. Like there’s no way Ricky Davis, Mardy Collins & Rasual Butler will all be able to get solid minutes behind/in front of Eric Gordon and Al Thornton. If Ricky Davis comes back with a vengeance and is productive, then Mardy would likely be the odd man out and we could waive him. Or if Ricky turns into a cancer, then out he goes. It just seems like we’d only know more down the road. Oh, and if we do keep Novak, he plays the 3 sometimes too, so we’re talking the swingspots will have 6 guys rotating through ’em.
To me the only thing that makes sense is #2 where it was actually a buy-out and the Clips saved some $. Nah, actually even that makes no sense ‘cuz what would Mad Dog’s incentive be to accept a buy out since I really, really, really don’t think he’ll get another NBA job this season. But maybe he’s delusional. However he’s always seemed down-to-earth, and I gotta imagine his agent would’ve been up front with him about his chances on the open market.
Yeah, I like the effort you put into those possibilities, but none really seem to fit right with me. Then again, we are just talking about Mark Madsen, so it’s not like this is a big deal either way. Probably we’ve already put more thought into it than Dunleavy ever did.
by FullyClips.com on Aug 25, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We'll trade for another player
We’ll end up trading for another player with the remaining trade exception. We’ll receive the player along with cash, thus making the player we receive free. This way the cheap Clippers don’t add on any extra money.
by Hooch20 on Aug 21, 2009 5:50 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I rather keep my options on Steve Novak.
Hero Novak.
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 Aug 21, 2009 6:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He did it for us
As the reader of Clips Nation he is, MDSr woke up this morning and made this roster move because he noticed we were seriously running short of topics here. Thanks Mike for keeping it interesting !!
Am I the only Clipper Fan in South America?
by edu_argentina on Aug 21, 2009 6:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Pretty funny
GMMDSr wakes up in the morning and checks ClipsNation: wow, it sure is quiet. Working the phones, but just can’t seem to push anything through. What can I do? There’s got to be something. Can’t take it, too quiet. Okay—I know—let’s waive Madsen.
by citizen zhiv on Aug 22, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good move IMO
I know he’s a good locker room guy and everything, but I hate the fact that the only thing he is remembered for is his dance at a LAKER championship rally.. DeAndre is going to be the dancer at OUR championship rally..
It just makes me wonder what’s going on though.. Are we going to use the exception to trade for another player from a team that’s in luxury tax hell? Are we going to trade one high dollar player (Kaman/Camby) for two players? Are we going to sign Sessions to an offer sheet AND try to keep Novak around? I just want to know! I can’t take the wait anymore! LOL
'Cause how you play, is how you'll be remembered. PLAY LOUD!
by CLiPPz WeRD 12 on Aug 21, 2009 7:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm assuming that...
we’re going to do something similar to what we did with Butler. If we use it on an expiring player, we get a role player this season and are still able to retain our cap room next year.
by Lawler 4ever on Aug 21, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you know anybody's name that is being tossed around in the FA?
Aside from that, I’ve noticed a trend this summer and last…
We trade 2nd picks for.. Camby and Butler.
Wow.
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 Aug 22, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*Not FA
I meant to say trade block
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 Aug 22, 2009 1:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am not really aware of anyone on the block
There are teams like Orlando and San Antonio who went all out and are now far above what the luxury tax threshold will likely be. We have approximately $3.4M to work with.
Some examples:
Orlando
Anthony Johnson (PG) at 2.1M
JJ Redick (SG) at 2.84M, QO in 2010 for 3.89
San Antonio
Michael Finley (G/F) at 2.5M
George Hill (PG) at 1.08M, TO in 2010 for 1.16M
Lakers
Jordan Farmar (PG) at 1.95M, QO in 2010 for 2.87M
by Lawler 4ever on Aug 22, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd take Jordan Farmar off their hands.
I’d also be willing to take Michael Finley because he’s still a pretty decent shooter. But I don’t see a point in adding Riddick if we plan to resign Novak.
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 Aug 22, 2009 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Redick
The only purpose redick would have is adding more guard depth, unfortunately we need a guard that can play some point as well.
Farmar hasn’t been all that the Lakers have wanted him to be, and it looks like he’s been replaced by Brown. I think they would definitely consider moving him since it would save them almost 4M,
Finley would be cool if Novak is out of the picture. He’d still be fighting Butler for minutes.
I wouldn’t expect San Antonio to give up Hill with him being a nice young prospect, but they did draft a couple of young point guards this year. Hill and Gordon have a familiar with each other, both being from Indiana.
Anthony Johnson gets a lot of heat, but I think he’s solid if he’s coming off the bench. With the signing of J-Will, they now have 3 pgs and Carter is also capable of running things in spurts.
by Lawler 4ever on Aug 23, 2009 9:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the 14th seat will definately be a pg of some kind
2 natural pgs is not going to be enough, baron will miss at least 20 games.
if u count novak, we had 4 pfs.
2 pgs:4pfs = not a great ratio
i actually like maddog and dont see the harm in letting him ride the pine. i doubt he will be challenging for minutes anywhere.
but if your magic number is 14, a backup pg > madsen
Clippers Basketball.... It's Masochistic!
by Clipochistic on Aug 21, 2009 11:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Which 3rd string (or 2nd who knows?) pg were you looking at?
Aside from Sessions.
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 Aug 22, 2009 1:24 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i know you love will conroy
he put up 25+ in the dleague last year.
as a third option at point guard (if sessions doesnt happen), lets bring him back!
there’s not alot of choice amongst current free agents, so its gonna have to be some kind of spec pickup anyways (be it some euro find, a dleaguer or summer league sensation).
Clippers Basketball.... It's Masochistic!
by Clipochistic on Aug 22, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
if we had a time machine, we could go back and sign marcus williams
(before memphis)
Clippers Basketball.... It's Masochistic!
by Clipochistic on Aug 22, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mardy collins
mardy played pretty well when he was starting pg for a little while and he is a solid backup pg when bdavis and telfair arent playing
by Steven V on Aug 22, 2009 2:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
in a pinch
mardy and gordon ‘could’ run the show. but if the eighth seat of the playoffs is on the line, i would take mike taylor over collins, keep in mind i was for them letting taylor go.
i guess you could make the argument that mardy could be better than a guy like taylor or conroy (overall).
Clippers Basketball.... It's Masochistic!
by Clipochistic on Aug 24, 2009 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only thing we really lose by waiving Madsen now
is using him as a trade chip later in the season
…however
basketball-wise, a trade chip of Ricky is more appealing than a trade chip of Madsen
his contract as not a BIG expiring contract…so its not so so interesting to other teams
if we were trading expiring contracts for a good player, then it is assumed the other team has enough roster spots to take on an extra player or two or three.
by KidJustin on Aug 24, 2009 11:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Clips Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
