Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Gift Of The 2003 Tigers

Beckoning the real Olshey

In his recent Hoopsworld article, Eric Pincus had this to say about Olshey's offseason inactivity.

Once the big names went elsewhere (LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Rudy Gay etc.), Neil opted against over-spending on second- and third-tier talent. Instead he gave small, workable deals to role players like Ryan Gomes, Randy Foye, Craig Smith, Rasual Butler and Brian Cook. The team still has financial flexibility moving forward...

I've been rocking back and forth on the fence about this sort of "Patience" interpretation. Actually, I've been on the fence about every interpretation that you guys have been putting out there. Here's a brief list of the most popular positions, as I've understood them.

1. The Clips' priority is to come in just above minimum salary, as the Cook signing suggests. The organization is thus run by some seriously cheap, ungrateful bastards. 

2. For an assortment of reasons, the Clips just struck out this offseason. It's probably a combination of poor reputation and not wanting to overspend. The general thing to conclude is that the new FO has gotten off to an ineffectual start. So it's just business as usual.

3. Gomes and Foye are actually better players than many think, and so the offseason hasn't really been so poor. There's reason to be optimistic, especially with the young talent coming in.

4. Why, of course, Olshey just doesn't want to muck up the cap space with merely above average guys. He's holding out for that big break, however long it takes. According to HoopsHype, we could have near max space next season, depending on what we do with Smith, Rasual, and DJ, along with the new CBA. So however stingy DTS and the FO may appear, the fact is that the team is looking to spend significant bucks on the right guy. We're committed to holding out until it finally happens.

Frankly, I haven't seen too many posts arguing for explanation #4, so I'm here to give it more airtime, which is not to say that I'm ready to believe it.

I would point out, this is not really an OKC strategy, but it does allow us to try out the new guys in the meantime. Hmmm, so why not be patient? The longer Griffin has to strut his stuff, the more likely we are to lure some top talent our way. Time appears to be on our side, and the tide is slowly turning, and it's not over 'til the fat lady sings. And I might even go on, if only I knew what to really believe.

Hey Olshey! What should I believe? Surely you recognize the huge gulf between #1 and #4... So why maintain this poker face? Why play into the hands of your accusers? Don't you think it would be in everyone's best interest to tip your hand here? 

There is one basic point I would like to make. As far as I can tell, there is no water tight proof for any of the above 4 positions. We still don't know for sure. If Olshey's plan (endorsed by DTS) has been to hold out for that one star talent, then of course he would do everything that he's done so far. Maybe he judged that Childress wasn't our guy, and nor were any of the others after the top tier guys were gone. So here he sits, like a cat waiting to pounce. Or maybe the Clips are just a bunch of cheap bastards. 

Comment 54 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

you forgot one glaring question (or point)

What were the instructions given to him if the Clippers didn’t land a big name FA.

Can’t put all the blame strictly on his shoulders.

by bacek on Jul 29, 2010 5:09 PM PDT reply actions  

Fair enough

I just changed some of wording, to try to reflect this a little better.

"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT

by SilverClip on Jul 29, 2010 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

What I tend to believe

Olshey was leaning toward hiring Casey but Sterling was too gun ho to talk down.

History of free agents under previous mgt’s (Dunleavy’s) watch; BD comes back to hometown with mediocre results. Cassell near the end of his career, and Mobley who was probably “overpaid” for based on results.

Previous and current management pointed towards this summer to take a shot at a big name FA but the big three pulled a fast one and joined up, while 2nd tier options stayed home for a ton of money, and while there were creative possibilities to upgrade the team nothing materialized other than the draft day trade to snag Bledsoe.

None of the signings seemed out of order save for Brian Cook which no one seems to be able to explain.

Still much too early to grade Olshey with the current cap flexibility and the fact that there’s a lot of talent never to have played in a single game including a 1st and an 8th overall.

Opinions differ on why a few mild mannered citizens are so quick to judge the new GM in such against type fashion. It could be that after years of trying to support Dunleavy when he was under fire, they’re enjoying their hand in playing the other side. I for one never had a big issue with Dunleavy as a GM, he may have screwed us over with the Randolph trade, but he was able to bail himself out.

by ghost_ride on Jul 29, 2010 5:55 PM PDT via mobile reply actions  

Something has to be said about the one year deals for Rhino and Sual.

It’s baffling both elected one year deals with the Clippers. This is great news for us for two reasons:

1) Players already acquired through traded actually CHOSE to stay here in favor of others teams. With the way contracts were handed out, I am CERTAIN both players could have gotten if not better, certainly longer deals.

2) The franchise still has its eyes toward the future. This year will be what last year should have been: showcasing Griffin to attract a top flight small forward.

Carmelo, at least for the moment, is still looming.

"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.

by Gordon for President on Jul 29, 2010 6:06 PM PDT reply actions  

He's also the lone star soon-to-be FA who actually LOST to us in the playoffs.

That has to at least have some kind of subconscious effect in taking us more seriously.

"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.

by Gordon for President on Jul 29, 2010 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions  

  1. is highly unlikely.
  1. I agree with.

As for Melo…we can dream but I’m guessing he signs an extension. With the new CBA coming, he’d be smart to get all he can.

by madglove on Jul 29, 2010 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

strange...

1 is highly unlikely

2 I agree with

Not sure what happened there.

by madglove on Jul 29, 2010 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments so far are all moderate

I guess the hard-liners tend to shout the loudest. This fanpost looks like the place for the rest of us. I personally feel more at home with the wait-and-see crowd. I do wish Olshey would meet with the press and talk frankly about things. The longer he stays silent, I bet the worse it will look. Is he stuck in a bad place, trying to build a bridge between DTS and the rest of the world?

"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT

by SilverClip on Jul 29, 2010 7:19 PM PDT reply actions  

One more thing.

I’m not sure how I feel about free-agency this offseason. I don’t think the Clips came up with much but… it might not be that bad.
I also won’t blame the hiring of Del Negro on Neil Olshey. It seems that he may have been over-ruled. And perhaps VDN will be the centerpiece of a perfect storm. The success of the 2010 Clippers is entirely on him and Baron Davis. If it doesn’t work it all blows up and we can move on without either partner. But that opinion smells of schadenfreude, and frankly I don’t want to be that guy.
But there’s another thing that concerns me. It hasn’t yet become fashionable to be a Mike Dunleavy fan, but, as far as MD-GM, I guess I am one. When he drafted Blake Griffin, Eric Gordon, and even Al Thornton, I knew Dun was on the ground, working those guys out, and I had a very positive feeling about his ability. I do not feel that way about NO. After Summer League, an imperfect test to be sure, I’m completely baffled by the trade of a future number one pick (Protected? Not protected? Who knows.) for Eric Bledsoe, who looks like a way-undersized two guard. Mix that in with the smurfish prospect of Bledsoe playing next to Eric Gordon and it looks like a terrible misfit to me. Then there’s Al-Farouq Aminu who looks like a long-term project who might not be the long-desired piece to slot in at small forward. In fact, he might really be a perfect power forward in the NBA. He’s only nineteen, not hard at all to see him getting a little thicker, adding muscle. He’s really not much smaller than Blake Griffin.
The position of General Manager of the Clippers is fraught with pitfalls: Getting the rest of the league to take you seriously, dealing with your owner are perhaps the hardest details, but then there’s the everyday stuff, like choosing a coach and building a roster of interlocking parts.
I hope I’m wrong, but so far, I’m not feeling it.

by John Raffo on Jul 29, 2010 8:23 PM PDT reply actions  

If all this comes together, they'll make a movie out of it

You’ve covered all the conflicting elements well, especially the pitfalls of our fledgling GM. I get a flashback to Denzel Washington in Remember the Titans. As in that move, part of what makes the Clippers’ story line believable is that we DO have some talent on board. Highly touted talent, no less… and a whole lot of sputters and misfires in the meantime. Dare I say, Foye suddenly seems like the prototypical Clipper— A lottery pick looking to finally make good. Can the misfits here make a match?

One thing I kind of like about Olshey and VDN, if I drum hard enough into my deepest well of optimism, is their younger, less predictable, and more novel approach to the mission. Maybe, just MAYBE they’ll manage to feel around until they hit upon a coherent team combination. Dunleavy was steady as GM, but maybe what we need is a greater dash of brilliance. At this point, the movie Armageddon comes to mind.

"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT

by SilverClip on Jul 30, 2010 9:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'm actually happy with this offseason...

It seemed like everyone (at least on espn.com) that wrote about the Clippers probable offseason anticipated that they would miss out on LeBron and then overpay for Rudy Gay or Joe Johnson. I think the Clippers showed some shrewdness this offseason. No we didn’t get LeBron or Dwayne Wade, but we also didn’t sign any bad contracts (Brian Cook could be considered one I guess, but the guy is probably getting paid about a million or two a year). Childress would’ve been interesting and okay, but not great, and I’m okay not having him on the team for the next five years. If the Clippers are ever going to be truly relevant, they’re going to need a superstar player, and I’d rather to try to get one again next year rather than sign a bunch of okay guys to long deals and strive for mediocrity.

Yay yay.

by KamanHomie on Jul 29, 2010 8:54 PM PDT reply actions  

Yeah, it's at this point that I get annoyed again at ESPN's description of our "disastrous" summer

ESPN knows full well that some of the best deals are the ones that never happen, except when it involves the Clips.

"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT

by SilverClip on Jul 29, 2010 10:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Clippers most likely won't have max cap room

They barely had room this year but the multiple year contracts of Gomes and Foye cut into that. The Hoopshype article referenced shows how much cap space the Clippers would have if they let Blake Griffin and Eric Gordon leave. So the Clippers would have to trade someone to get the max under the current collective bargaining agreement. Of course the entire salary cap structure could change or there could be a lockout next summer but as of right now they would be well short of offering a max contract.

FA in 2010.

by ClipperChuck on Jul 29, 2010 9:01 PM PDT reply actions  

True

They would have a couple expiring’s, and more plenty of tradeable’s though.

by ghost_ride on Jul 29, 2010 9:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Crap, is that why the salary figure is so low? I should have added it up myself.

In any case, we don’t need a max guy. A younger Mike Miller would do just fine.

"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT

by SilverClip on Jul 29, 2010 9:35 PM PDT up reply actions  

Ultimately, no one knows anything until next summer.

I’ve been thinking that in the new CBA, barring anything really radical like a hard cap (which the union will never sit still for) the cap might be reduced by something like ten percent (which would increase the owners’ profit by ten percent). So, the cap would come in around 51 million, rather than 57… but what about all those teams that suddenly are over the cap, or worse, suddenly in the luxury tax bracket? There’s no way the owner’s will penalize the other owners… instead, teams will be given some special dispensation, or a grandfather clause, allowing them to stay over for a given period of time, likely the length of any pre-existing contracts, without paying any penalties. Following that thinking, the Clips should have spent all their money THIS year. Not next.

by John Raffo on Jul 29, 2010 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

LOL

What can one do but laugh? I don’t know how the hell any of that is going to get resolved.

"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT

by SilverClip on Jul 29, 2010 10:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

My question is

Of Gomes, Foye, Butler and Smith, Smith is by far the best player and best piece. He was available weeks after free agency opened at a very cheap price.

What was the urgency to lock up Fomes and Goye? Given how long Butler and Smith remained available and cheap, what was the impetus for needing to resolve those deals on the first day of free agency?

Coaches don't matter. - Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball

by John R on Jul 30, 2010 9:17 AM PDT reply actions  

He may very well be the best player of that crop...but he certainly wasn't the greatest need

SF and backup combo guard were the priority targets (well, at least from my viewpoint going into FA) – seeing how quickly teams were moving that initial week before “the Decision”, can you really blame them for locking something down sooner than later?

In hindsight, maybe they could have spent more time to try to lure Miller away from Miami or get in between the Phoenix deal for Childress (who I’m starting to think they didn’t want, via a pm response from Lawler) – but I doubt either were real options.

by banandy on Jul 30, 2010 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

What was the reasoning for not wanting Childress?

Woulda liked him, but wasn’t dying to get him. Just interesting to hear what Ralph said.

"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.

by Gordon for President on Jul 30, 2010 9:28 AM PDT up reply actions  

Never heard of any mutual interest. I don’t think he would have been a good fit for the price.

by banandy on Jul 30, 2010 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yikes

He would have been a GREAT fit for the price.

Coaches don't matter. - Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball

by John R on Jul 30, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

Why wouldn't I?

You just walk into stores and buy the first thing you see because it is of the type you need?

Let’s go the other way. What if they had “missed out” on Goymes and Foam? Would anyone be heartbroken? Would it have significantly changed the outlook for the worse?

Coaches don't matter. - Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball

by John R on Jul 30, 2010 9:55 AM PDT up reply actions  

Depends on what I'm buying - but sometimes, yes! Other times, I do a lot of research...

No, I wouldn’t be heartbroken, but to be fair other than Lebron, there aren’t any other FA’s that would have made us heartbroken either. Maybe Josh Childress to some of us…but even that might be a bit of a stretch for words.

I’m sure if Olshey were to respond to you, he would give you basketball reasons…not, what I just offered.

I won’t get into much of that since it’s not going to do much good, but at least from a depth chart perspective, you have to admit that those two adds can cover four positions, right? Adding in a backup center (DJ), you’ve got a 8-man rotation (9 if you give Rhino a regular role backing up Griffin) that could go the whole game regularly…that flexibility will be good, especially if all the rookies crap out this year.

by banandy on Jul 30, 2010 10:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Covering the positions is a really low bar

I would never say that you couldn’t put them into a game at those positions.

Being able to cover those positions doesn’t go very far to assuage the concern over just being cheap.

Why not wait, even one day, and see if anything better is available? Pick them up on the 8th instead of the 7th? Was it about getting the right players or about getting the right contracts?

I am interested in the reasons, not the basketball reasons. There isn’t much basketball reason to target those two guys as plan B.

Coaches don't matter. - Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball

by John R on Jul 30, 2010 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

There isn't much basketball reason against those two guys either compared to the field

You’re not suggesting they should have offered max with Rudy Gay, right? We probably would have gotten a lot more respect from sports writers, and maybe even a few more wins…but would it have been worth it?

Frankly, I’m not sure waiting one more day would accomplish much…and it’s not like you would be here today satisfied about the timing of things.

FO knew about everyone going into free agency for quite some time. We probably won’t ever know “the reasons”, so I guess we should just assume that they pursued everyone they felt worth pursuing – Lebron, Miller and Gomes ended up being their 3rd guy on the SF list. Presumably Foye was their 1st choice (or 2nd assuming they asked about Blake).

by banandy on Jul 30, 2010 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don't really want them to literally wait one more day

Its about considering all options.

If you are saying LeBron and Miller were the only above average FA available so after that it doesn’t matter, that’s what my concern with the FO’s actions are. A total lack of imagination or information. Or they didn’t care.

If they signed Gomes and Foye today, I would feel much less negative about it than signing them the first day. Signing them today signals that they tried and failed. Signing them the first day indicates they weren’t interested in trying, or didn’t know how to try.

Coaches don't matter. - Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball

by John R on Jul 30, 2010 11:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

Signing those guys did not prevent the team from signing other players

You have no idea what they tried or didn’t try.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Jul 30, 2010 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

It's not fair to characterize what Olshey did in that way

See my post below.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Jul 30, 2010 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

How do you know it isn't fair?

Were you in the room when the options were considered?

If not, then your guess is no better than mine, and mine is backed up by the fact that the Clippers signed two below average players on the first day of free agency.

Coaches don't matter. - Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball

by John R on Jul 30, 2010 11:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

"Below average" is an opinion and a conclusion that really means very little at best

They were signed as backup players (Gomes may not be as it turns out) who have significant skills that they can contribute.

If by below average you mean that you added up certain stats and determined that they are below the mean of all players, including starters, and that overall they fall below whatever your mean is, then the metric is totally unsophisticated and really has very little to do with an actual analysis of what they would bring to the team.

Do you really think that any GM basically just looks at players in that way and makes a decision whether to sign them based on such an unsophisticated analysis? Don’t you think maybe that they would consider the makeup of the team, what the team’s needs are and whether these players have skills that can help the team play better given where they would likely slot in?

I think that the sort of stats you’re referring to can help in the analysis, but to say they are “below average” based on such stats and therefore that Olshey should not have signed them when he did is an assumption that I don’t believe is reasonable.

You’re a smart guy. I’m sure you can come up with a better argument than that one. Olshey is open to criticism but let’s be fair about it.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Jul 30, 2010 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

They are good players who would have been signed

He obviously thought that they would fit in with this team. Stated another way, he’s doing his job.

There are other arguments you can make about other players that you think should have been signed, but there’s nothing wrong with those signings IMO and they dont’ take us out of the running on those other players.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Jul 30, 2010 10:44 AM PDT up reply actions  

These comments, esp the little debate above w/ JohnR, banandy, and Jax, are very constructive

Things may still be a little testy, but overall the tone is much more diplomatic, and the ideas are getting chiseled into clear cut forms. This is good blogging, fellows.

I’m inclined to agree with JohnR that the FO’s moves so far have lacked creativity, even as banandy makes the good point that there weren’t too many other obvious moves out there after the top tier guys. The speed of the signings is pretty suggestive that we were trying to lock down good contacts, rather than good players. But Jax counters that perhaps we sought Gomes and Foye for their particular fit with our roster, and in the meantime their acquisition certainly hasn’t precluded us from further moves. So we come full circle again, and I’m wondering if there isn’t some sort of litmus test for differentiating explanations #1 and #4. Are we cheap as hell or just waiting for our moment?

Frankly, the fact that we showed no outward interest in Childress makes lean towards the cheap explanation. We could have and should have picked up such an asset while we had the chance. At worst, he could have been a trade chip later on. I get the strong sense that the FO just doesn’t want to run the organization at a higher salary level.

The counter to this, Olshey once spoke against the idea of moving up incrementally. Anyone remember that? If he really is a “quantum leap” kind of guy, then I just think he should go public and say so again. How about a newsletter to the clientele? The fan base needs a modest quanta of reassurance.

"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT

by SilverClip on Jul 30, 2010 4:30 PM PDT reply actions  

about the childress part

he was only to be have in a trade or atlanta could match, i think that’s how phoenix make it happen. I think it was discussed in another fan post that maybe that is what stopped us, maybe atlanta asked for something we weren’t willing to give, and this hasn’t been reported. Also maybe he just wasn’t interested in LAC, and Ralph comment was just so that we didn’t look rejected to other FA.

by XXDC2XX on Jul 30, 2010 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions  

That's a nice surmisal...

As I was reading the thread over I felt all sides had relevant points.

by John Raffo on Jul 30, 2010 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree

I really don’t have a side, however. I just think the FO needs a little time before we judge. I pointed that out in my response to John R above regarding his blanket “Foye and Gomes are below average so Olshey shouldn’t have signed them” argument. Unfortunately, he didn’t respond. I’d be interested in his take.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Aug 1, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

What if we actually signed one of those bigs with a max deal?

Let’s say Boozer. Forget about Gomes and Foye, there’s no more money left for them, but we did resign Rhino and Rasual.

Our roster would be:
Baron, EJ, Blake, Kaman, DJ
Boozer, Rhino, Rasual
Aminu, Bledsoe, Warren, Blakely

And say, we got 2 more guys for the minimum to get us to a 14-man roster.

I know there would be overlap with Griffin and Boozer, but is it really that big a deal that they share the same position? The Lakers somehow make it work…why couldn’t this work? Blake or Boozer could always play together when Kaman sits – with one of them guarding the 5 (which isn’t really a big deal since there aren’t many legitimate post scorers).

How many teams in the league could field a potential game-breaking smash-mouth lineup featuring Baron, EJ, Griffin, Boozer and Kaman? Only the Lakers (Fish, Kobe, Lamar, Pau, Bynum) by my count. Sure Griffin isn’t a three and so that lineup wouldn’t work all the time or anything…but in terms of high % opportunities with Boozer and Kaman, and then Griffin for cleanup? Sick! Defense would allow one shot each possesion – no offensive rebounds allowed.

Just a thought I had a while back during the Lebron mania….

by banandy on Jul 30, 2010 5:01 PM PDT reply actions  

There would be overlap with Griffin, Boozer, and Aminu, (and Gomes, Smith, and Cook).

They’re all better PF’s than SF’s. And if you don’t sign Gomes you’re doing what? Bringing back Butler? Which, in my opinion, is the weakest of all of the FO moves. (Other than signing Cook which is impenetrably baffling.) I love Boozer but it’s a terrible fit.

by John Raffo on Jul 30, 2010 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, in this alternate reality, Butler and Aminu would be put at the three

at least for this season.

…and Bledsoe/EJ would have to backup Baron with pg duties. In other words, better impact talent, but less depth than the current roster – is that tradeoff worth it?

by banandy on Jul 30, 2010 11:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Can you even afford Butler?

80 over 5 for Boozer? I guess you’ve got maybe 1 or 2 M left… you might not be able to afford Butler. So maybe you have Aminu and… hmm… another minimum or even rookie contract behind him. You are seriously thin at the wings. You’re right, you’d have to start Griffin at the wing.
Of course your bench is a bunch of rookies or minimum contracts. And you’ve only got EJ as a shooter. But your interior defense is absolutely massive.
Then, it would get better next year when you’d have the MLE. Which fits in with the “spend it all theory”. So does this team win 40 this year? Anyway it could win 50? I could see 50-52 in 2012. In 2012-13, you have to figure out what you want to do with Baron and EJ and rejigger, but that’s in the cards anyway.
I’m not sure locking up all your capspace for Boozer is worth it though. I think it gets you to the playoffs in 2012, but how deep? And then what? Three more years of Boozer, you lose Baron and Kaman but you probably keep EJ and Griffin and hope Aminu turns into something useful.
You’d probably be better off signing a better-than-average wing (a Childress, Iggy, or Deng) instead. The team’s just as good, and deeper, with more cap flexibility. And with Gomes and Foye on the bench, you’re probably just over the cap so you’ll get the MLE anyway. Use the MLE or the draft to replace Baron and you still re-sign EJ and Griffin without going into the luxury tax.
That’s a better team, isn’t it? It is if Griffin becomes as good as Boozer and EJ becomes a little more decisive.

by John Raffo on Jul 31, 2010 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

Ah, I suppose if you don't resign Rhino, there should definitely be enough money for Butler

The way I see it is if Boozer doesn’t work out or if Blake Griffin becomes the real deal, there should be tons of trade partners out there for A-level talent. Just because you sign him max deal for 5 years, doesn’t mean you have to hold him for all of those 5 years…perhaps, Boozer is the piece we need to get Carmelo or some other star wing player?

All hypothetical I know…doubtful that Boozer would have even considered the Clippers seriously.

by banandy on Aug 2, 2010 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

We wont know until we see what happens...

The system and teammates means more in my opinion. Some examples come to mind, like James Posey during Boston’s most recent championship. He was huge for that team off the bench and significantly less well known. Speaking of Boston, you could also throw Leon Poe into that category. Ultimately, the success/failure of Vinny and the new staff could mean more than the individual play of Gomes and Foye (role players at best). The way I see it, an above average Gomes or Foye is still a 3rd scoring option at best.

Lets view them for what they are: pieces.

by indy818 on Jul 30, 2010 9:18 PM PDT reply actions  

A few thoughts: Gomes vs. Childress

Reading this thread I’m thinking about JohnR and the “first day” issue, plus Ralph’s note about Childress as “a good fit at the price,” which has an addendum about how the Clips were never really interested in Childress. That’s the part that doesn’t make sense to many of us.

But I wonder if Gomes was taken for 1) the quality of the player at the price, plus the length of the contract and 2) for defensive purposes. I should say that I don’t know enough about Gomes to really know what I’m talking about.

The Clips could use a good distributor and all-purpose player like Childress, or a Mike Miller-type shooter/playmaker. The only reason to think that they weren’t interested in Childress is that he was in some ways the anti-Gomes, better on offense than defense, a longer, more expensive contract. Childress would have improved the immediate future for the Clips in ways that Gomes certainly won’t, but that takes the argument to the next step: maybe that wasn’t the goal. The goal is to get a high-level SF over time, perhaps after the next labor agreement, and after the team develops and evolves and we have a better idea of how good some of these players are.

I’m not saying I agree with the strategy.

But it’s a progressive model. This year we’ll get to see Griffin, Gordon in his 3rd year, some rookies and a few new players. And VDN will be playing guys like Aminu and DJordan and Bledsoe. I guess it’s a program of building the first part first (what will Griffin add, to Kaman/BDavis/Gordon), rather than going for the whole thing.

On Foye, the intriguing part is that is that he was recommended by Mike Miller, who the Clips had a real interest in, tho they didn’t want to overpay him. Not that Miller’s opinion means so much, but there’s some sense that he has some upside at the price and might be a good fit. The semi-solid, perhaps undervalued guys who could fill their needs were the ones the Clips wanted, and that must be why they signed them so quickly.

Perhaps it was hard for us to see the strategy behind this because we were waiting for a more significant signing. They knew they were going to bring back Butler and Smith. I don’t think it was about being cheap, although that part is hardly a coincidence. It may have been about not being overcommitted before the Clips know what they have.

On Cook, I’m surprised that people are so baffled by the signing. He’s just the new Novak, a player to stretch the defense if Kaman or Griffin is being double-teamed. It should be slightly easier for him to get on the floor than it was for Novak, as he’s probably less of a defensive liability. Another low-budget choice. Not exciting, but not a longterm thing either.

by citizen zhiv on Aug 1, 2010 6:19 PM PDT reply actions  

Miller/Childress/Gomes

If the play was laying low for a season and seeing what you have and developing Aminu, then why the interest in Miller? And why the lack of interest in Childress? There are two possible answers:
1) Childress, while the better all around player, is not a 3pt shooter, whereas Miller is.
2) Childress had no interest in coming to Clips and told the Clips as much.

by John Raffo on Aug 2, 2010 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

I agree with both of those points.

"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.

by Jax on Aug 2, 2010 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Clips Nation!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Letter from Elton Brand to Clip Nation

Recent FanPosts

Small
Anyone have a video of DJ's jumper?
Blake_griffin_cropped_small
It was a good day
Small
Poll: April 27th where do you see the Clippers?
Small
40-26 and getting there
Small
Are we showing Mo enough love?
Blake-griffin-dunk_small
JR Smith. Yay or Nay?
Small
Moving past Feb 7, 2012
Small
New Member-Trade Suggestion
34008_1531733776948_1342861896_3019627_1265958_n_small
Who Else is Going to the 76ers Game?
Small
Farewell Note to King Solomon

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Clipsnation_small Steve Perrin

Editors

Joc_01_small John Raffo

Authors

Blake-griffin-dunk_small Lawler's Law