I don't think the clips are getting CP3 & that's OK

RiversideClips · Post #1 » by **RiversideClips** » Thu Dec 8, 2011 12:19 am

Listening to all the media outlets, I think the Clippers will be on the outside looking in on the CP3 deal.Oshley (who I have bagged on in this forum) seems to be standing his ground on keeping the young Clipper core together and I am very happy about that. Can the Clips improve, YES, but they should do it as a unit not starting over each year.
If Paul was thinking he would ask NOLA to take Aminu, Bledsoe & Kaman (expiring as we speak,) NOLA could unload Kaman for a future 1st & something extra, no problems. NOLA would get two young players and what they get for Kaman, not bad for Paul;not great, but not bad. Paul then teams up w/ Gordon,Blake & DJ, the Clips Amnesty Williams & use his cash on Butler (with some $$$$ still in pocket) and the Clips look good.
Keep Foye & Gomes as Backups w/ the 2 Rookies + Ike,Cook, Smith.
Any ideas or is this just a fantasy?

scoobs07 · Post #2 » by **scoobs07** » Thu Dec 8, 2011 12:39 am

CP3 is demanding to damn much. The ego on some of these players is rediculous. I dont like the fact that he is saying that if Tyson Chandler is signed, the chances of a team resigning him increase. Chandler is a below average shot blocker for being 7-1 with long arms. DJ got 1.8 bpg in only 26 mpg. CP3 is also being selfish and telling Blake," forget your best friend DJ, this is my team and Im bringing my own 7 foot buddy with me, so screw you and your buddy Mo Williams that you spent thee sumer with". I also dont like the fact that he cant agree to an extension or give the Clips any kind of indication that he would re-sign. So I would be cool with the Clips signing a SF, a C and resigning DJ. Clips would still be a pretty good team. EJ wants tohandle the ball like Dwayne Wade anyway.

PF-Griffin 24ppg/12rpg/4apg
SF-Prince 12ppg/5rpg/38% threes
C-DJ 8ppg/8rpg/2.5bpg
PG-Williams 14ppg/5apg/40% threes
SG-Gordon 25ppg/3rpg/6apg
C/PF-Kaman 10ppg/7rpg/1.5bpg
PG-Bledsoe 6ppg/2rpg/3apg
SF-Aminu 6ppg/3rpg/35% threes

In the off season, I would try to find a way to get Kendall Marshall in the draft. I know he is projected to go in the 15-20 range and doesnt have a great jumper, but neither did Kidd and even Magic when they came in the league.

playaloc916 · Post #3 » by **playaloc916** » Thu Dec 8, 2011 3:06 am

If we don't end up with Paul, it's not like it's the end of the world. We still have two high picks in a loaded draft, and we can focus on signing Prince or another quality SF. Keep building our team carefully, piece by piece.

The ultimate scenario would be if we could get Paul and keep our core of Blake, EJ, and DJ together, but it looks like Golden State is just upping everything we offer, so they might end up with him in the end. Who knows what's going to happen. I just hope we don't lose EJ in the process.

Post #4 » by **mkwest** » Thu Dec 8, 2011 6:37 am

Every time there is some big name player requesting a trade, the story changes day after day. It switches from one team to another. Part of it is that the trading team is looking for the right return while the player is looking for the right situation and another part may be that it keeps people talking. After months of no basketball and no progress being made, it's been a new story everyday since the agreement was reached.

I'm glad that we're not offering up EJ. I think that it would be a huge mistake in the long run. If you add Paul, but take away all of our best assets that could improve team, then we're only slightly better. If his knee health goes south (he has had miniscus removed from his knee, which is what Roy' is dealing with right now), then what? The cartilage doesn't grow back, so the only hope would be that it doesn't get much worse anytime soon. The thing that is reassuring is that EJ has said he doesn't want to be trading and wants to sign an extension. There's been some concern from some fans, and that sentiment lets us know that he does like it.

With Paul, he's looking out for himself just as Deron is looking out for his best interests. Extending now doesn't make much sense for them. They'll only get a couple more years and then they'll be free-agents again. If they are traded now, opt out in the summer, then they'll be able to re-up for 5 years. For a receiving team, It's better to have Paul for 6 years instead of 4. Likewise, it's much better for him to maximize his contract situation under the same terms. For a team like us or GSW, it doesn't make sense to give up young stars, prospects, draft picks and possible cap space for a guy that may walk after 66 games. So any decision on Neil's part must be carefully thought out. It's not just about dropping the ball or "it's the same old Clippers" like some individuals may say.

It would be great to add a player like Paul, which is something that we have desperately longed for. I would love to see a favorable deal get done, but I'm still a fan of this team and its players at the end of the regardless of a deal. With that I mean, I'm hopeful that this group of players can take a leap forward and be a competitive team. Youth is on side. We have talent that can and likely will be some of the league's best at their positions. We still have our assets and there will be other options that present themselves. Not getting Paul is not the end of the world.

playaloc916 wrote:If we don't end up with Paul, it's not like it's the end of the world. We still have two high picks in a loaded draft, and we can focus on signing Prince or another quality SF. Keep building our team carefully, piece by piece.

The ultimate scenario would be if we could get Paul and keep our core of Blake, EJ, and DJ together, but it looks like Golden State is just upping everything we offer, so they might end up with him in the end. Who knows what's going to happen. I just hope we don't lose EJ in the process.

It better not be 2 high picks :lol:

that would mean that we suck again.

supfoo · Post #5 » by **supfoo** » Thu Dec 8, 2011 7:58 am

i will **** my pants if the lakers of all teams get chris paul, especially for that ridiculous rumored package of bynum OR pau + fillers.

Post #6 » by **thanumba2clippersfan** » Thu Dec 8, 2011 6:21 pm

It would be nice to get Paul, but I am happy with our roster. I'm very high on the core of Blake, EJ, and DJ. If we keep them together and make smart deals I think we will have deep playoff runs in the future.

If we did get Paul I thought he'd be interested in extending with us. I guess now that isn't the case. If we trade for him he needs to be committed to us and understand that this is Blake's team.

donemilio21 · Post #7 » by **donemilio21** » Thu Dec 8, 2011 6:56 pm

supfoo wrote:i will **** my pants if the lakers of all teams get chris paul, especially for that ridiculous rumored package of bynum OR pau + fillers.

I'm right there with you.

playaloc916 · Post #8 » by **playaloc916** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:27 am

mkwest wrote:It better not be 2 high picks that would mean that we suck again.

Whoops, forgot the lockout was over, lol.

So now the Paul to Lakers trade is apparently off due to other owners being against it. So does that mean we still have a chance? Dammit, why won't the Hornets just accept the Kaman + Twolves 1st + filler deal???

Post #9 » by **mkwest** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 2:58 am

playaloc916 wrote:
mkwest wrote:It better not be 2 high picks that would mean that we suck again.

Whoops, forgot the lockout was over, lol.

So now the Paul to Lakers trade is apparently off due to other owners being against it. So does that mean we still have a chance? Dammit, why won't the Hornets just accept the Kaman + Twolves 1st + filler deal???

The NBA ownership of the team was always a potential problem. There was a fuss when the Thornton/Landry trade went down last season. Could you imagine if we had made this trade and the league vetoes it? Everybody would have had a good laugh at our expense.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens, because it's going to be interesting. A S&T could theoretically go down in the summer. Maybe there is an owner in place before then and he's moved during the season (probably unlikely).

supfoo · Post #10 » by **supfoo** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 4:43 am

the rumored trade offers from the warriors and clippers for chris paul probably wouldn't have gotten vetoed since they don't involve huge contracts going back to the hornets. the problem with the vetoed deal involving martin/scola/dragic/odom going to the hornets is that it conflicts with the interests of the nba to keep that franchise attractive for potential buyers. no one in their right mind is going to want to buy a team that's locked into mediocrity for the next 5-7 years and saddled with a huge debt that the new owners have to finance themselves.

Det the Threat · Post #11 » by **Det the Threat** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 5:33 am

supfoo wrote:the rumored trade offers from the warriors and clippers for chris paul probably wouldn't have gotten vetoed since they don't involve huge contracts going back to the hornets. the problem with the vetoed deal involving martin/scola/dragic/odom going to the hornets is that it conflicts with the interests of the nba to keep that franchise attractive for potential buyers. no one in their right mind is going to want to buy a team that's locked into mediocrity for the next 5-7 years and saddled with a huge debt that the new owners have to finance themselves.

I think there would be guys willing to buy that franchise, but that wouldn't be that shiny new owner keeping the Hornets in town, just like the league wants to make everyone believe.

It would be someone from out of town(Seattle, San Jose, Kansas City etc.) buying the team and moving it as soon as possible.

Oh, and one also should keep in mind that Paul didn't wanted to re-sign before and certainly won't do so now(he's even trying to fight that veto and won't report to camp), which means them being in at least as bad a shape as they would've been while making the trade.

supfoo · Post #12 » by **supfoo** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 5:55 am

Det the Threat wrote:
supfoo wrote:the rumored trade offers from the warriors and clippers for chris paul probably wouldn't have gotten vetoed since they don't involve huge contracts going back to the hornets. the problem with the vetoed deal involving martin/scola/dragic/odom going to the hornets is that it conflicts with the interests of the nba to keep that franchise attractive for potential buyers. no one in their right mind is going to want to buy a team that's locked into mediocrity for the next 5-7 years and saddled with a huge debt that the new owners have to finance themselves.

I think there would be guys willing to buy that franchise, but that wouldn't be that shiny new owner keeping the Hornets in town, just like the league wants to make everyone believe.

It would be someone from out of town(Seattle, San Jose, Kansas City etc.) buying the team and moving it as soon as possible.

Oh, and one also should keep in mind that Paul didn't wanted to re-sign before and certainly won't do so now(he's even trying to fight that veto and won't report to camp), which means them being in at least as bad a shape as they would've been while making the trade.

i agree. overall the rumored deal conflicts with the interest of the nba to keep the league in tact. if the the trade went through, i'd imagine the hornets would either be sold and relocated or if they can't find a buyer, the league will probably start looking into contraction. clearly stern doesn't want either to happen.

obviously the hornets gm still has some authority to manufacture a trade for chris paul but it's not going be one that has huge 3 year deals coming back their way. chris paul is likely gone but i think there's a non-zero chance that they end up keeping him, at least until the mid-season trade deadline. i guess good news is that the clippers might still be in the mix.

clippers23fan · Post #13 » by **clippers23fan** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 7:47 am

Is it just me or is this the best thing that could have happened to us?

The owners basically lost any leverage the Hornets had in making a deal (especially if Paul really does hold out) by eliminating our biggest competition for Paul.

If the problem is the amount of contracts being taken back in return, doesn't an expiring Kaman, Bledsoe and/or Aminu, plus the Minny pick net us CP3?

The Celtics offering Rondo and the Warriors potentially offering Curry are going to run into the same problem that the Lakers ran into.

This type of craziness may be exactly the thing we need to bring Paul into a Clippers uniform.

Ranma · Post #14 » by **Ranma** » Fri Dec 9, 2011 8:38 am

I echo the sentiment that the Clippers are just fine without overpaying to bring in Chris Paul. It's funny how the Clippers & Warriors were identified early as the preferred teams with respective targets Gordon and Curry, yet neither were offered. New Orleans was playing the media to try to panic the other team to up the offer and both teams stood pat, which says something about the conviction of Neil Olshey to key players on our roster. I said before that even the 2012 Minny pick wasn't worth giving up for a non-committal Paul.

I'm surprised the Lakers were able to pull of their trade before it was nixed by the league, but while the Hornets got good value out of the three-way deal in terms of productive players, it would not have been the way I would have approached rebuilding a franchise in the aftermath of losing its franchise player, especially for a team that would have little resources to complement a competitive team in addition to appealing to prospective new ownership.