2026-27 Regular Season

[toooskies]

The Harden contract will likely cost Altman his job. Probably Kenny too. They were too committed (scared) to take the opportunity to let Harden go this past offseason. And, giving him a third year was unforgivable.

It really depends on how influential Dan Gilbert was in the decisions to trade Garland for Harden and to re-sign Harden. And also who decided we needed to "win the summer" and overpay Harden long-term to get him to take less this year so we could get Watson.

It saved Gilbert a lot of money to get under the 1st apron when we instead could have let Harden go, kept Strus and/or Schroder, and just signed Wade or Kuminga.

Yeah, that 3rd year was the cost of getting Harden to accept less than $40M/year so we could sign Watson. Consider it a sunk cost.

Letting him walk was not an option short of pulling a scumbag move of promising him one thing to get him to give up his option and then pulling the rug out from under him.

So basically ...

- Harden on his option at $40M, we're in the second apron, no Watson
or
- Harden on his 3/96, we get Watson, we're out of the second apron

Could have also done Harden for 0/$14 honestly, kept Schroder or not, and signed a real end of the roster.

[JonFromVA]

It really depends on how influential Dan Gilbert was in the decisions to trade Garland for Harden and to re-sign Harden. And also who decided we needed to "win the summer" and overpay Harden long-term to get him to take less this year so we could get Watson.

It saved Gilbert a lot of money to get under the 1st apron when we instead could have let Harden go, kept Strus and/or Schroder, and just signed Wade or Kuminga.

Yeah, that 3rd year was the cost of getting Harden to accept less than $40M/year so we could sign Watson. Consider it a sunk cost.

Letting him walk was not an option short of pulling a scumbag move of promising him one thing to get him to give up his option and then pulling the rug out from under him.

So basically ...

- Harden on his option at $40M, we're in the second apron, no Watson
or
- Harden on his 3/96, we get Watson, we're out of the second apron

Could have also done Harden for 0/$14 honestly, kept Schroder or not, and signed a real end of the roster.

Koby and Kenny are probably on the street right now if they couldn't have found something better than Harden for Garland, but once that deal was done there were only the two options I laid out. Just the way the league works if a team/GM wants to stay on the good side of players and agents.

[jbk1234]

Yeah, that 3rd year was the cost of getting Harden to accept less than $40M/year so we could sign Watson. Consider it a sunk cost.

Letting him walk was not an option short of pulling a scumbag move of promising him one thing to get him to give up his option and then pulling the rug out from under him.

So basically ...

- Harden on his option at $40M, we're in the second apron, no Watson
or
- Harden on his 3/96, we get Watson, we're out of the second apron

Could have also done Harden for 0/$14 honestly, kept Schroder or not, and signed a real end of the roster.

Koby and Kenny are probably on the street right now if they couldn't have found something better than Harden for Garland, but once that deal was done there were only the two options I laid out. Just the way the league works if a team/GM wants to stay on the good side of players and agents.

I disagree on both counts. If you had the Schroder/Ellis trade lined up, you could've just tried to get Garland healthy by the playoffs. He played in a play-in game for the Clippers. The idea that you had to pay Harden, well above his market value, after the Knicks series is just not want I agree with in any way. He's 37 and performance has to factor in. Otherwise, you're playing a rigged game.

[JonFromVA]

Could have also done Harden for 0/$14 honestly, kept Schroder or not, and signed a real end of the roster.

Koby and Kenny are probably on the street right now if they couldn't have found something better than Harden for Garland, but once that deal was done there were only the two options I laid out. Just the way the league works if a team/GM wants to stay on the good side of players and agents.

I disagree on both counts. If you had the Schroder/Ellis trade lined up, you could've just tried to get Garland healthy by the playoffs. He played in a play-in game for the Clippers. The idea that you had to pay Harden, well above his market value, after the Knicks series is just not want I agree with in any way. He's 37 and performance has to factor in. Otherwise, you're playing a rigged game.

They weren't betting the season and their jobs on Garland with two bad wheels getting healthy in time to make a difference, and you're missing the point. Even if they decided not to pay Harden, he would have picked up his option because nobody else was going to pay him $40M.

[jbk1234]

Koby and Kenny are probably on the street right now if they couldn't have found something better than Harden for Garland, but once that deal was done there were only the two options I laid out. Just the way the league works if a team/GM wants to stay on the good side of players and agents.

I disagree on both counts. If you had the Schroder/Ellis trade lined up, you could've just tried to get Garland healthy by the playoffs. He played in a play-in game for the Clippers. The idea that you had to pay Harden, well above his market value, after the Knicks series is just not want I agree with in any way. He's 37 and performance has to factor in. Otherwise, you're playing a rigged game.

They weren't betting the season and their jobs on Garland with two bad wheels getting healthy in time to make a difference, and you're missing the point. Even if they decided not to pay Harden, he would have picked up his option because nobody else was going to pay him $40M.

Do you think their jobs are secure now? It seems like they just made a different bet and we're debating whether it was a good one.

Altman could've let Harden know that if he couldn't find a trade partner after picking up his option, that we'd waive him before the guarantee date. Even if Altman wasn't prepared to that, he could've let him pick up his option and tried to trade him on expiring contract, or just let him expire at the end of the season. This is isn't a benefit of hindsight thing. The Cavs had hindsight after the Knicks series on both Atkinson and Harden.

[JonFromVA]

I disagree on both counts. If you had the Schroder/Ellis trade lined up, you could've just tried to get Garland healthy by the playoffs. He played in a play-in game for the Clippers. The idea that you had to pay Harden, well above his market value, after the Knicks series is just not want I agree with in any way. He's 37 and performance has to factor in. Otherwise, you're playing a rigged game.

They weren't betting the season and their jobs on Garland with two bad wheels getting healthy in time to make a difference, and you're missing the point. Even if they decided not to pay Harden, he would have picked up his option because nobody else was going to pay him $40M.

Do you think their jobs are secure now? It seems like they just made a different bet and we're debating whether it was a good one.

Altman could've let Harden know that if he couldn't find a trade partner after picking up his option, that we'd waive him before the guarantee date. Even if Altman wasn't prepared to that, he could've let him pick up his option and tried to trade him on expiring contract, or just let him expire at the end of the season. This is isn't a benefit of hindsight thing. The Cavs had hindsight after the Knicks series on both Atkinson and Harden.

No, I don't think their jobs are secure now, but they did buy a reprieve.

Like I told you at the time of the trade, Harden's future was predetermined when we acquired him within agreed parameters otherwise the trade wouldn't have gone down. Maybe you forgot, but Harden had a defacto no-trade clause.

We can sit back and suggest they should have done anything but traded for Harden, but we don't know what was on the table.

Not to mention but Garland is off to shaky start with the Clippers this season ...

https://www.si.com/nba/clippers/onsi/clippers-have-darius-garland-problem-01m6ecgc08jc

[JujitsuFlip]

They weren't betting the season and their jobs on Garland with two bad wheels getting healthy in time to make a difference, and you're missing the point. Even if they decided not to pay Harden, he would have picked up his option because nobody else was going to pay him $40M.

Do you think their jobs are secure now? It seems like they just made a different bet and we're debating whether it was a good one.

Altman could've let Harden know that if he couldn't find a trade partner after picking up his option, that we'd waive him before the guarantee date. Even if Altman wasn't prepared to that, he could've let him pick up his option and tried to trade him on expiring contract, or just let him expire at the end of the season. This is isn't a benefit of hindsight thing. The Cavs had hindsight after the Knicks series on both Atkinson and Harden.

No, I don't think their jobs are secure now, but they did buy a reprieve.

Like I told you at the time of the trade, Harden's future was predetermined when we acquired him within agreed parameters otherwise the trade wouldn't have gone down. Maybe you forgot, but Harden had a defacto no-trade clause.

We can sit back and suggest they should have done anything but traded for Harden, but we don't know what was on the table.

Not to mention but Garland is off to shaky start with the Clippers this season ...

https://www.si.com/nba/clippers/onsi/clippers-have-darius-garland-problem-01m6ecgc08jc

Darius had the same issue as Kyrie. They're dudes who thought they should be #1 options, then once they were made that, everyone realized why they should never be that.

Little skinny PGs with injury issues are rarely ever going to work as your 1a.

I like Garland, hopefully his 2 bad big toes are behind him. But he's much better suited as a #3 option on most teams.

It most likely won't be until the team after the Clippers or maybe even the one after that, before Garland finds his footing, no pun intended.

[jbk1234]

They weren't betting the season and their jobs on Garland with two bad wheels getting healthy in time to make a difference, and you're missing the point. Even if they decided not to pay Harden, he would have picked up his option because nobody else was going to pay him $40M.

Do you think their jobs are secure now? It seems like they just made a different bet and we're debating whether it was a good one.

Altman could've let Harden know that if he couldn't find a trade partner after picking up his option, that we'd waive him before the guarantee date. Even if Altman wasn't prepared to that, he could've let him pick up his option and tried to trade him on expiring contract, or just let him expire at the end of the season. This is isn't a benefit of hindsight thing. The Cavs had hindsight after the Knicks series on both Atkinson and Harden.

No, I don't think their jobs are secure now, but they did buy a reprieve.

Like I told you at the time of the trade, Harden's future was predetermined when we acquired him within agreed parameters otherwise the trade wouldn't have gone down. Maybe you forgot, but Harden had a defacto no-trade clause.

We can sit back and suggest they should have done anything but traded for Harden, but we don't know what was on the table.

Not to mention but Garland is off to shaky start with the Clippers this season ...

https://www.si.com/nba/clippers/onsi/clippers-have-darius-garland-problem-01m6ecgc08jc

Garland just went for 24 and 10 last night. He's the only legitimate offensive threat on that roster with Ingram out. It's like watching him play alongside Okoro and Levert as the only wing options when Mitchell was injured. Look up how Rui, Wagler, and even Strus have been shooting this season. I have no idea how he's averaging 7 assists a game tbh. Ingram and Yanic will get on the court for the Clippers and then, when the opposing team doesn't have the luxury of focusing solely on Garland, and a Lopez/Rui front court aren't providing the only back end protection on defense, the proof will be in the pudding.

On the Harden front, I have no idea what the actual parameters of any putative *agreement* were and tbh, no one else posting here does either. I do know that it was reported out during the Raptors series that the Cavs had not committed to a specific number and that leak definitely came from the organization. I do know that the FO currently has an incentive to push the didn't-have-a-choice narrative after handing him that contract. I also know that it was clear after the Knicks series that Harden's days a starting PG on a playoff team were numbered.

[JonFromVA]

Do you think their jobs are secure now? It seems like they just made a different bet and we're debating whether it was a good one.

Altman could've let Harden know that if he couldn't find a trade partner after picking up his option, that we'd waive him before the guarantee date. Even if Altman wasn't prepared to that, he could've let him pick up his option and tried to trade him on expiring contract, or just let him expire at the end of the season. This is isn't a benefit of hindsight thing. The Cavs had hindsight after the Knicks series on both Atkinson and Harden.

No, I don't think their jobs are secure now, but they did buy a reprieve.

Like I told you at the time of the trade, Harden's future was predetermined when we acquired him within agreed parameters otherwise the trade wouldn't have gone down. Maybe you forgot, but Harden had a defacto no-trade clause.

We can sit back and suggest they should have done anything but traded for Harden, but we don't know what was on the table.

Not to mention but Garland is off to shaky start with the Clippers this season ...

https://www.si.com/nba/clippers/onsi/clippers-have-darius-garland-problem-01m6ecgc08jc

Garland just went for 24 and 10 last night. He's the only legitimate offensive threat on that roster with Ingram out. It's like watching him play alongside Okoro and Levert as the only wing options when Mitchell was injured. Look up how Rui, Wagler, and even Strus have been shooting this season. I have no idea how he's averaging 7 assists a game tbh. Ingram and Yanic will get on the court for the Clippers and then, when the opposing team doesn't have the luxury of focusing solely on Garland, and a Lopez/Rui front court aren't providing the only back end protection on defense, the proof will be in the pudding.

On the Harden front, I have no idea what the actual parameters of any putative *agreement* were and tbh, no one else posting here does either. I do know that it was reported out during the Raptors series that the Cavs had not committed to a specific number and that leak definitely came from the organization. I do know that the FO currently has an incentive to push the didn't-have-a-choice narrative after handing him that contract. I also know that it was clear after the Knicks series that Harden's days a starting PG on a playoff team were numbered.

Garland was also just +2 in an 18pt win, so he's going to take another hit to his +/- stats in spite of getting his turnovers under control (10 assists with just 2 turnovers).

As for Harden, I'm not pushing anyone's agenda, it's just simple logic which has proven to be true at every step in the process.

[jbk1234]

No, I don't think their jobs are secure now, but they did buy a reprieve.

Like I told you at the time of the trade, Harden's future was predetermined when we acquired him within agreed parameters otherwise the trade wouldn't have gone down. Maybe you forgot, but Harden had a defacto no-trade clause.

We can sit back and suggest they should have done anything but traded for Harden, but we don't know what was on the table.

Not to mention but Garland is off to shaky start with the Clippers this season ...

https://www.si.com/nba/clippers/onsi/clippers-have-darius-garland-problem-01m6ecgc08jc

Garland just went for 24 and 10 last night. He's the only legitimate offensive threat on that roster with Ingram out. It's like watching him play alongside Okoro and Levert as the only wing options when Mitchell was injured. Look up how Rui, Wagler, and even Strus have been shooting this season. I have no idea how he's averaging 7 assists a game tbh. Ingram and Yanic will get on the court for the Clippers and then, when the opposing team doesn't have the luxury of focusing solely on Garland, and a Lopez/Rui front court aren't providing the only back end protection on defense, the proof will be in the pudding.

On the Harden front, I have no idea what the actual parameters of any putative *agreement* were and tbh, no one else posting here does either. I do know that it was reported out during the Raptors series that the Cavs had not committed to a specific number and that leak definitely came from the organization. I do know that the FO currently has an incentive to push the didn't-have-a-choice narrative after handing him that contract. I also know that it was clear after the Knicks series that Harden's days a starting PG on a playoff team were numbered.

Garland was also just +2 in an 18pt win, so he's going to take another hit to his +/- stats in spite of getting his turnovers under control (10 assists with just 2 turnovers).

As for Harden, I'm not pushing anyone's agenda, it's just simple logic which has proven to be true at every step in the process.

I mean the Clippers start a 38-year old Brook Lopez, who looked washed last season, at center. They start Rui, who is struggling with his shot, at PF. They start Garland at PG. That is not the recipe for a starting unit that's salvageable defensively. If Rui can at least offset his defensive limitations by having his shot return to the mean, and if Yanic can get and stay on the court at center, and if Ingram can get and stay on the court at SF, then I expect the Clippers entire starting unit to produce much better impact stats.

[toooskies]

What's crazy is that the Clippers' defense plays like the worst defense of all time when Garland is on the court and the best defense of all time when he's off. Somehow Garland is cutting the centers' block rate in half, crushing their defensive rebounding rate, and the other team goes from shooting like everyone is an all-star over 60% EFG to being Bronny around 40% EFG.

It's all the defense, and I bet Garland's higher-than-usual share of live-ball turnovers don't help, but it's not as if he's turning the ball over 10 times a game.

[JonFromVA]

Garland just went for 24 and 10 last night. He's the only legitimate offensive threat on that roster with Ingram out. It's like watching him play alongside Okoro and Levert as the only wing options when Mitchell was injured. Look up how Rui, Wagler, and even Strus have been shooting this season. I have no idea how he's averaging 7 assists a game tbh. Ingram and Yanic will get on the court for the Clippers and then, when the opposing team doesn't have the luxury of focusing solely on Garland, and a Lopez/Rui front court aren't providing the only back end protection on defense, the proof will be in the pudding.

On the Harden front, I have no idea what the actual parameters of any putative *agreement* were and tbh, no one else posting here does either. I do know that it was reported out during the Raptors series that the Cavs had not committed to a specific number and that leak definitely came from the organization. I do know that the FO currently has an incentive to push the didn't-have-a-choice narrative after handing him that contract. I also know that it was clear after the Knicks series that Harden's days a starting PG on a playoff team were numbered.

Garland was also just +2 in an 18pt win, so he's going to take another hit to his +/- stats in spite of getting his turnovers under control (10 assists with just 2 turnovers).

As for Harden, I'm not pushing anyone's agenda, it's just simple logic which has proven to be true at every step in the process.

I mean the Clippers start a 38-year old Brook Lopez, who looked washed last season, at center. They start Rui, who is struggling with his shot, at PF. They start Garland at PG. That is not the recipe for a starting unit that's salvageable defensively. If Rui can at least offset his defensive limitations by having his shot return to the mean, and if Yanic can get and stay on the court at center, and if Ingram can get and stay on the court at SF, then I expect the Clippers entire starting unit to produce much better impact stats.

As tooskies points out, they're just playing a lot better when Garland isn't on the floor. I'm not watching them, so I don't have any explanations and it's still early in the season but Garland has the worst on court +/- and on-off of any player on the Clippers.

Brook Lopez, by comparison is somehow downright decent inspite of being in the starting lineup with DG.

Kris Dunn is the only other Clip besides DG to start all 9 games and his numbers are also much better than DG's.

We don't need to be re-litigate this, time will eventually tell us the truth; but even as bad as Harden has been playing it's not a slam dunk that we would have been better with Garland at this point. For instance, Garland's -3.2 BPM (up after the last game) is still worse than Harden's -1.8.

[JonFromVA]

What's crazy is that the Clippers' defense plays like the worst defense of all time when Garland is on the court and the best defense of all time when he's off. Somehow Garland is cutting the centers' block rate in half, crushing their defensive rebounding rate, and the other team goes from shooting like everyone is an all-star over 60% EFG to being Bronny around 40% EFG.

It's all the defense, and I bet Garland's higher-than-usual share of live-ball turnovers don't help, but it's not as if he's turning the ball over 10 times a game.

The turnovers and awful defense make me wonder if he's still wearing bricks for shoes after his toe injuries.

[jbk1234]

What's crazy is that the Clippers' defense plays like the worst defense of all time when Garland is on the court and the best defense of all time when he's off. Somehow Garland is cutting the centers' block rate in half, crushing their defensive rebounding rate, and the other team goes from shooting like everyone is an all-star over 60% EFG to being Bronny around 40% EFG.

It's all the defense, and I bet Garland's higher-than-usual share of live-ball turnovers don't help, but it's not as if he's turning the ball over 10 times a game.

Is just Garland coming off the floor or are B. Lopez and Rui also coming off the floor as well? I don't think those three should be on the court together and I think the only reason they are is injuries. They need Ingram back so that Rui can go back to bench. They need Yanic back so that Lopez can go back to the bench.

[JujitsuFlip]

Great, Mobley has a sprained big toe... We've heard this story before.