Email
PrintComments
Love this little nugget:
" And every once in awhile, the Clippers turn these picks into players like Griffin and Gordon"…uh, when was the last time we drafted a Griffin????
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 18, 2011 10:28 AM PDT reply actions
1999 and 2001, technically?
You’re serioiusly comparing Griffin to Lamar Odom?? And you realize we had Pau for all but 2 seconds, right?
Why why why do I respond to your stupid-ass quips.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 18, 2011 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions
Tyson Chandler*
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 18, 2011 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m guessing here, but I assume that almost 2 years after being drafted, Odom’s wins produced was higher than Griffin’s currently is.
And that’s not the point. The point is that the Clippers have had oppurtunites via the draft to rebuild their team. Sometimes the picks work out, sometimes they don’t, but that’s a side discussion in the context of this article.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions
This is just another example of why looking at advanced stats in a vacuum makes zero sense.
Basketball is organic. But besides that, the article is unfair. It’s claiming we’ve had these opportunites before. We haven’t. Four franchises in the last 12 years have drafted an absolute game changer Number One: us, CLE, CHI, and ORL.
To say we’ve been here before and have squandered it is an extreme version of “It’s the Clippers”. Win-shares, wins-produced makes about as much sense as +/-.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 18, 2011 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions
We’re already putting Griffin on a level with Lebron and Howard?
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Do you not think that he's a potential game changer viewed in similar fashion to the way
LBJ and Howard were viewed at the time they came into the league? Particularly Howard?
I think that this is the case.
"[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.
I think Griffin is very very good. I think James is one of the 5 best players ever. So I would never use a James/Griffin comp.
Howard is tougher. Howard is taller meaning he can be a true center which is more valuable than a true PF and that won’t ever change. Howard also worked on and improved his game a lot to make him such an elite player (and kudos to him.) Griffin will have to do the same to get on that level. It’s certainly possible, but I wouldn’t project anybody to say that it is “likely” that they will be that good so early in their career.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
True, but what i said was
whether he is currently being viewed as a potential game changer, not whether he actually is one of the five best players in basketball.
"[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.
What difference does it make if he’s viewed that way? Him being viewed that way won’t result in the same level of production that James and Howard have produced.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions
In my view, the article (and we are talking about the article)
Is suggesting that the Clippers have drafted a gamechanger in BG. He hasn’t yet played a full year and it is difficult to know whether that is in fact the case. So you really need to go off of projected value when evaluating someone like BG as a gamechanger. I agree with GFP that LO really isn’t the type of player that the article was referring to, or if he was, then the argument doesn’t make much sense IMO. Danny Manning, however, may be what they were referring to.
"[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.
I don't see where the article asserts that BG is a gamechanger
In fact, the article basically lumps in Griffin and Gordon together as above average players who were lottery picks.
I took the article to saying that the Clippers front office is incompetent. The only reason they aren’t worse this year is because of Griffin, Jordan and Gordon, all draft picks. Leaving aside Jordan, the most productive players on the roster are players that were granted to them without an open competition on the market. The Clippers essentially lucked into these players and theres no way a better run club could have grabbed these guys. This was the Clippers reward for being bad.
The second part says that despite being bad for basically all time, they still make a ton of money. Wins does not translate into income, market size and location does. Whether Griffin is better than Odom is completely besides the point.
The second half of the essay seems pretty well conclusive to me, as has been pointed out in Forbes and on SBNation by Ziller. And absent revenue sharing, teams fleeing small markets to large markets is a complete no-brainer for ownership.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Jax has it right.
I’m not comparing Griffin to the current versions of LeBron or Dwight, but rather Year One Griffin vs. Year One LeBron and Year One Howard. Griff’s numbers are on par with LBJ’s and certainly better than Howards.
Griffin has the potential to be a generation player like Wade, LeBron, Kobe, Magic Johnson, KG.
We have NEVER had this before, and to say we have but blown adds insult to injury.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's going down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 18, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Well, for one thing it would make more sense to compared Griffin at age 21 and Howard at age 21. That makes it alot closer. And like I said with Jax, I wouldn’t project anybody at age 21 to be Howard at age 25. Too many variables and too much can go wrong.
And your comments are really making a mountain out of a mole hill since that’s not what the article at large is about. The article is very complimentary to Griffin and Gordon and basically shits on the Clippers ownership/management. Are any of us really debating those facts?
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions
Kind of interesting that WOW seems to think EJ is a good player
At least based on that article. I also agree with the point made at the end by one of the commenters. Market size is the key factor here. It has nothing to do wih the “passion” of the fanbase (a statement I disagree with).
Finally, the statement at the end of the article about how if we were in Europe the Clippers would cease to exist is an interesting one. I wonder what the basis is for that statement – does it have something to do with how losing teams fare in Europe or can any team move anywhere within a country, is this specific to Euro basketball? Interesting statement.
"[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.
For a guy who likes to brag about his travels and tried to pass himself off as an expert during the world cup
One would think you would have at least come across the concept of relegation.
Relegated clubs don’t cease to exist.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Um, I was just asking a question
Try not to be such a douche and maybe you’ll get along better here.
"[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.
Their model considers EJ above average this year. WP/48 > 0.1 is the cutoff.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 10:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Ok, thanks
"[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.
So if WOW thinks EJ is above average . . .
"[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.
Danny Manning?
"[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.
the maloof's might learn something from steve wynn
it appears that the debt ridden “palms casino” may be taken over by creditors…maybe the maloof’s need to take lessons from a variety of sources.
Ziller has basically been hammering this point since last year. It makes more sense to suck in a large market than to be good in a small market. For example, those solidly above average Pacers teams of the early 2000s were losing money.
The NBA system is broken and something (revenue sharing?) needs to be done to fix it.
In Europe, the Clippers without a doubt would exist
There are so many more soccer clubs than the Man U’s of Europe where teams have had a long history of losing games and money. And they have amazing fans too.
These bloggers need to get off their high horses and stop looking for every opportunity to underhandedly diss the Clippers. Why isn’t anyone talking about how good EJ is and the reason for their recent struggles is because he’s been out of the lineup. We never hear or read anything about Bledsoe or Aminu, two of the better picks in this years draft. Every Clipper article has to go back to money. I’ve been a fan for a while and was getting used to it, but this season there are so many better stories to write or better reasons to used advanced statistics for than bs articles like this.
Bottom line, the Maloofs are moving because they need money, you don’t need to spend more than 10 seconds to figure that out.
"The perception here in Los Angeles has always been that the Lakers find a way to win games and the Clippers find a way to lose…I recognize it, but I'm not going to accept it," Griffin said. "I'm not going to say, 'Oh, that's fine."
by TheEricGordonShow on Mar 18, 2011 12:27 PM PDT reply actions
If Sterling tries to shed salary or do something cost-cutting it's because "it's the Clippers." When the Maloofs or anyone else does it, it means they are just following in Sterling's ways.
Every owner will make moves that are in the interest of their own finances, it’s been going on for years in every sport.
Example: Lakers trade Sasha and a pick for Joe Smith. (Sound similar to the Baron trade? Yet no one is going crazy over that.)
"The perception here in Los Angeles has always been that the Lakers find a way to win games and the Clippers find a way to lose…I recognize it, but I'm not going to accept it," Griffin said. "I'm not going to say, 'Oh, that's fine."
by TheEricGordonShow on Mar 18, 2011 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I dislike that trade
primarily because the Clippers could have done that and gotten a free first round pick for that unused cap space in a sign and trade for Steve Blake.
Help us Altered Beast you're our only hope.
by ClipperChuck on Mar 19, 2011 3:21 AM PDT up reply actions
Your first point is essentially what I understand the situation to be
Of course, I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know much about the details of European sports franchising. I would venture to guess that no one else here does either, despite the self-aggrandizing douche-like reply by one poster above.
"[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.
I don’t know enough either. I’m curious to learn about a professional sports team that stays in business with a long history of losing games and money. How does a soccer team in Europe continue to exist if they lose money? These are just club teams and there is no revenue sharing at all. How would any business continue to exist after losing money for an extended period of time? It’s not like FIFA is going to bail out a failing franchise like Stern did with NOH and Shinn.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions
But the Clippers don't lose money
So the real question in my view that we are discussing today is whether professional sports teams there who lose games but are profitable stay in business or not. I don’t know the answer but the article here seems to say that they don’t. I’m just wondering that the article is basing that statement on.
"[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.
"what the article is basing that statement on"
"[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.
In European sports, the Clippers would no longer exist. Perhaps a post on this subject would be worthwhile.
Ya, he needs to write that post. I’d be interested to read that.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions
That's why I was asking about in my original post
things such as whether franchises can move wherever they want (winning team cutting into losing team market), whether there are rules in the leagues that force losing teams to disband regardless of profits, etc.
Why I had to be attacked for asking that question is beyond me.
"[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.
I would be interested in a cost-benefit analysis of making a team better in a major market
The Clips made more money when they had a better record. For starters, I’d like to know how gates receipts went up that year compared to any rise in payroll.
There’s sure to be a lot of variation and scatter, but perhaps there’s a basic trend between payroll and wins, as well as between wins and gate receipts. By the numbers, then, does Donald actually have a financial incentive to avoid basketball success?
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
Ziller
Last year, I analyzed 10 years of Forbes financial data to explore how NBA teams make money. Winning helps; the analysis showed that there was a small positive relationship between winning percentage and net income. But the correlation between market size and profit was twice as large (and even larger if you disconnected the Nets from the New York market, which based on recent years is a fair thing to do).
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/1/6/1918713/nba-lockout-revenue-sharing-magic-bullet
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
Cool article
It sounds like DTS doesn’t really have an incentive either way. He’s in a major market, so he’s not compelled to worry about winning or other sorts of efficiencies. Spending more $ carries more risks, so why necessarily bother?
The article’s breakdown of the different money interests is nicely succinct, and it takes me back to our exchange the other day about the NBA’s priorities for the new CBA. If you’ll indulge me, I want to talk out loud here and try to outline the situation, so that at least I’m articulating things to myself.
There are a few different ways that the player and league could agree to distribute the $. Revenue sharing would help to spread the wealth, keeping small markets afloat but also creating salary inflation through a more robust free agency. A lower and stricter cap would force salaries down and thereby help struggling markets, but it would also effectively reward Sterling and other major market penny pinchers, as they could then spend even less while perhaps being more competitive. A hard cap would ensure compliance around the league, but it would also discourage teams from resigning and keeping players, at least in many instances. A compromise would be to limit the number of Bird rights contracts per team, but I have to think that midlevel and older players would then suffer. The Ziller article suggests that the real culprits behind salary inflation are teams like Dallas and the Lakers, so maybe a solution would be to just lower the threshold for the luxury tax, coupled with steeper penalties and perhaps an upper hard cap well above what most teams would be willing to pay anyway.
It’s all interesting stuff that really I’m just beginning to ponder. I’m all ears about it, and thanks indeed for your links!
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
The last option actually sounds like a pretty good compromise. Dallas and LAL will be miffed, but at the end of the day, they’ll just keep spending above the tax threshold anyway. A more robust tax would work like a revenue sharing arrangement so low income/payroll teams will recieve tax proceeds to fund (in an ideal world) baketball operations and players would be happy because more money being spread around means more money to pay the players.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course, the luxury tax in baseball has shown that low revenue teams will pocket the money instead of spending it (in certain cases) but that’s their perogative I guess. You really don’t need a tax to make all owners earn the same amount, but you can’t have a system where a handful of teams outright lose money.
by Michael White on Mar 18, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Comparing the Kings to the Clippers isn't quite so simple...
The Wages of Wins article leaves out two critical factors when comparing the two teams: Debt and arena cost.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Sacramento-Kings_327146.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/32/basketball-valuations-11_Los-Angeles-Clippers_322952.html
The Clippers have a very favorable deal on their arena and no debt(!) The two teams overall revenues are very similar but what will the Kings arena costs (vs. arena receipts) be if they move to Anaheim? Will that be offset by the non-gate revenue (their TV and radio deals)?
But how much do the Maloofs owe on the team purchase?
I don’t think the answers are that clear… and I don’t think WoW dug that deep into the facts. The Clippers make a profit because Donald Sterling owns the team outright, is in a big (if crowded) market, and has low operating costs. Will the Anaheim Kings fit that same mold? Nope.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- C-a-C: This is probably as close to LeBron James working with John Waters as we’ll ever get
- Dwyane Wade’s hot pink pants: The kind of thing you can get away with when you drop 41
- Lamar Odom to New York? Dwight Howard on the move? For now, it’s all talk
