Mo Williams was traded for the #1 pick in the draft

mg · Post #21 » by mg » Wed May 18, 2011 1:23 am

Crap it seems like the Clippers win the lottery every couple years!

cool007 · Post #22 » by **cool007** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:23 am

Stunnaboy2K11 wrote:How do you not top-3 protect that, god what morons

My exact thoughts. It's not like they gave that lottery pick for a star or something.

It's freaking mo williams.

vincecarter4pres · Post #23 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:23 am

Stunnaboy2K11 wrote:How do you not top-3 protect that, god what morons

The better question is, how do you not top 2 protect it?

The second that trade happened I was like WTF?

Unreal.

vincecarter4pres · Post #24 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:25 am

Point-God wrote:Duke players haven't done too well in the NBA so I wouldn't be too hard on myself if I were a Clippers fan. They had one of the best NBA players from Duke and he couldn't make them a winner.

Your silly theory about this was easily debunked on the Draft Board already months ago but you continue to champion this slop and I say that as a Duke hater.

vincecarter4pres · Post #25 » by **vincecarter4pres** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:26 am

NOODLESTYLE wrote:
Stunnaboy2K11 wrote:How do you not top-3 protect that, god what morons

According to this, they could not protect their pick.

Clippers couldn't protect their pick btw way because of the rules - it was either the 2011 pick unprotected or not at all

Umm what?

Not true. Blatantly not. Please provide link.

ballhawk1 · Post #26 » by **ballhawk1** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:27 am

cool007 wrote:
Stunnaboy2K11 wrote:How do you not top-3 protect that, god what morons

My exact thoughts. It's not like they gave that lottery pick for a star or something.

It's freaking mo williams.

Month Williams is that good! According to Sterling

areg789 · Post #27 » by **areg789** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:27 am

lmao theres gonna be like 1000 threads bout this

jzmagik · Post #28 » by **jzmagik** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:29 am

Clippers would have had a potential dynasty with Griffin/Gordon/Irving/Jordan

aceyalone · Post #29 » by **aceyalone** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:29 am

Seriously, y'all need to get over it. Clippers messed up, but they aren't going to lose sleep over it. y'all just like bashing on them clips.

Point-God · Post #30 » by **Point-God** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:30 am

vincecarter4pres wrote:
Point-God wrote:Duke players haven't done too well in the NBA so I wouldn't be too hard on myself if I were a Clippers fan. They had one of the best NBA players from Duke and he couldn't make them a winner.

Your silly theory about this was easily debunked on the Draft Board already months ago but you continue to champion this slop and I say that as a Duke hater.

Just because you state that it was debunked doesn't make it true. I'd love to see anyone revisit that thread so that I can continue to crush Dukies.

NOODLESTYLE · Post #31 » by **NOODLESTYLE** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:31 am

vincecarter4pres wrote:
Not true. Blatantly not. Please provide link.

http://twitter.com/#!/EricPincus/status ... 5666176000

I guess Sterling hated Davis that much to not want to protect it.

JackFinn · Post #32 » by **JackFinn** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:31 am

Los Angeles Clippers.

510TWSS · Post #33 » by **510TWSS** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:37 am

clips1386 wrote:oh my bad, i was told 3rd.

Still, we traded a 6% chance at Irving, which means there was a 94% chance at trash.

Yeah, this whole revisionist look will make anyone perplexed. But that pick had a much, much, much, much, much, much higher likelihood of dropping than staying the same or jumping up to Top-3.

I guess the only argument to be made is that there should've been some protection rather than no protection.

biscuitsNgrady · Post #34 » by **biscuitsNgrady** » Wed May 18, 2011 1:46 am

Clippers should've known to always use protection

Friend_Of_Haley · Post #35 » by **Friend_Of_Haley** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:01 am

The only way I can imagine that the Clippers couldn't trade the pick next year is if they had future commitments and couldn't break the consecutive year without a first round pick. \

It looks like the actually have one pick due next year. They also have a pick due which is protected from 12-15, top 10. Then unprotected in 16.

However the pick they have due to them could have technically been given this year if outside the top 10. So they could have potentially had two picks in '11, No picks in '12 (if it was traded to Cavs) and again no pick in '13 (if it was outside top ten).

So I guess that uncertainty could have limited them? Not sure how complicated pick protection is allowed to get, but could they not have thrown a clause in saying if the Wolves were in the top 10 in '11 then they would protect the pick?

I'll try to make my thoughts more clear, but I have to jot down the logic.

SSUBluesman · Post #36 » by **SSUBluesman** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:06 am

NOODLESTYLE wrote:
vincecarter4pres wrote:
Not true. Blatantly not. Please provide link.

http://twitter.com/#!/EricPincus/status ... 5666176000

I guess Sterling hated Davis that much to not want to protect it.

That's just someone repeating what you said.

What "rules" prevents the Clips from being completely unable to protect the pick?

Canomad · Post #37 » by **Canomad** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:08 am

msi123 wrote:They traded Damon Jones for Mo Williams, so it was Damon Jones for Kyrie and Baron.

Friend_Of_Haley · Post #38 » by **Friend_Of_Haley** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:13 am

Okay so hypothetically:

If the Wolves finished outside the Top 10 in 2011, LA receives Wolves pick in 2011

LA Would still have their own pick in 2012, but if they finished outside top 10 in 2012 they owe that pick to OKC, so they can't trade that pick.

However, even if you could assume that they didn't give their 2012 pick to OKC, they could end up giving the 2013 pick to OKC and that uncertainty would also break the rule regarding consecutive first round picks.

So all in all it seems that the first round pick they owe OKC, which is top 10 protected from 2012 to 2015 is the culprit which limited their ability to trade other future picks.

So blame this guy: http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ser01.html

I guess they have their PG...

Friend_Of_Haley · Post #39 » by **Friend_Of_Haley** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:40 am

Okay, so I'm almost 100% sure that the Clippers couldn't commit another first rounder in 2012.

However, that means they just shouldn't have done the deal. Or they could have done an offer such as top 1 protected in 2011 and thats it (no future pick due) Maybe Cleveland bites at that, maybe they don't. If they don't you move on.

So while the protection issue is true, still a bad idea. They didn't have to trade a first rounder at all. And lets be honest, even if the knew they were giving "only" the #8 pick, is that worth it just to get rid of Baron?

Ayt · Post #40 » by **Ayt** » Wed May 18, 2011 2:43 am

biscuitsNgrady wrote:Clippers should've known to always use protection

Or just know when to pull out.