An early summer 2024 thread

[wco81]

I don't even get why there's a debate. PG will turn 34 in May. They may not want to give him too many years.

However, he just had a 47.1/41.3/90.7 season in 74 games. Those shooting percentages are well above career averages.

Clippers can't replace him and they obviously gave up a lot of assets for him.

If they can't do a sign and trade, they sign him and can trade him later -- though it won't be easy given his age and the kind of salary he's likely to get. But letting an all-NBA level player just walk without getting anything in return?

What is the point of Ballmer's money?

Why wasn't he extended earlier like KL? Could he get more if he waited until the summer?

Let's say the worst case scenario, the Clippers lose in a very tough matchup in the first round. They're going to let PG walk for nothing?

How does that help the team next season and in the future?

Does tanking the next few seasons even make sense? I thought they were out of draft assets for rest of the decade.

With the big commitment to KL and the new stadium, I can't imagine that they'd let PG walk for nothing.

Clippers don't have many good choices, especially the idea of signing a soon to be 34-year old PG. And definitely past his prime Harden. But PG just had a season almost as good as or as good as his best seasons.

The KL and PG core hasn't lived up to very high expectations. But if they break up the core, when will the Clippers come close to winning over 50 games again? I don't know their young players so maybe one of them will pop into a 21-22 PPG scorer on high efficiency but if they had such a player, he'd have probably been their sixth man.

[madmaxmedia]

Yes to everything you say...but it does get dicey if he is demanding 4 full years (or 3 + player option, same difference.)

I don't even get why there's a debate. PG will turn 34 in May. They may not want to give him too many years.

However, he just had a 47.1/41.3/90.7 season in 74 games. Those shooting percentages are well above career averages.

Clippers can't replace him and they obviously gave up a lot of assets for him.

If they can't do a sign and trade, they sign him and can trade him later -- though it won't be easy given his age and the kind of salary he's likely to get. But letting an all-NBA level player just walk without getting anything in return?

What is the point of Ballmer's money?

Why wasn't he extended earlier like KL? Could he get more if he waited until the summer?

Let's say the worst case scenario, the Clippers lose in a very tough matchup in the first round. They're going to let PG walk for nothing?

How does that help the team next season and in the future?

Does tanking the next few seasons even make sense? I thought they were out of draft assets for rest of the decade.

With the big commitment to KL and the new stadium, I can't imagine that they'd let PG walk for nothing.

Clippers don't have many good choices, especially the idea of signing a soon to be 34-year old PG. And definitely past his prime Harden. But PG just had a season almost as good as or as good as his best seasons.

The KL and PG core hasn't lived up to very high expectations. But if they break up the core, when will the Clippers come close to winning over 50 games again? I don't know their young players so maybe one of them will pop into a 21-22 PPG scorer on high efficiency but if they had such a player, he'd have probably been their sixth man.

[wco81]

So what would be better for the team, 3 years total? Because 2 years is probably not enough.

Let's say he plays at all-star or better level for 2 more seasons and the other 2 seasons he has a steep decline.

At least the Clippers will be competitive the next two seasons, assuming KL doesn't break down again.

If PG walks, Clippers may be barely a play in team the next two seasons.