2017 Offseason Thread

Roscoe Sheed · Post #181 » by **Roscoe Sheed** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 3:49 pm

I sure hope these reports are really just cp3 trying to gain leverage. It makes me sick that the warriors won again and then cp3 might leave a few weeks later

Method28 · Post #182 » by **Method28** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:37 pm

Roscoe Sheed wrote:I sure hope these reports are really just cp3 trying to gain leverage. It makes me sick that the warriors won again and then cp3 might leave a few weeks later

I don't think he really needs leverage. Either they max him out or he's gone. He might be gone anyways. He holds the leverage

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

wco81 · Post #183 » by **wco81** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 4:45 pm

I really wonder which other teams would give him a max deal though, which would still be like $30-35 million a year?

Supposedly the difference is as much as $70 million over 5 years.

But what if a team like the Spurs, who doesn't have a lot of cap room, offers like $25 million for 2 years guaranteed, maybe a team option for the third year? That would be a huge difference in total money.

As well as he's playing, he's on the downward slope of his career so I really wonder about the market for him. Same for Kyle Lowry, who's also angling for a max deal.

MartinToVaught · Post #184 » by **MartinToVaught** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:00 pm

Roscoe Sheed wrote:I sure hope these reports are really just cp3 trying to gain leverage. It makes me sick that the warriors won again and then cp3 might leave a few weeks later

He doesn't need leverage. Ballmer and Doc have been ready to hand over our whole salary cap to CP3 this whole time. He is actually interested in the Spurs.

Roscoe Sheed · Post #185 » by **Roscoe Sheed** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 5:25 pm

I was referring to leverage in the sense of a no trade clause or pushing their hand regarding a Melo trade. I'm fairly certain they will offer him the max

MartinToVaught · Post #186 » by **MartinToVaught** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:09 pm

Oh. I'd sooner let him walk than give him a no-trade clause on top of $210 million at age 32. That would kill our future.

Method28 · Post #187 » by **Method28** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 6:15 pm

Roscoe Sheed wrote:I was referring to leverage in the sense of a no trade clause or pushing their hand regarding a Melo trade. I'm fairly certain they will offer him the max

Honestly, ive mentioned it before and i kinda feel he WILL get the NTC

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

Post #188 » by **thanumba2clippersfan** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 7:42 pm

Now it's officially the offseason, the Warriors won like I thought they would. (I was rooting for the Cavs but I know the Warriors are the better team) I'm nervous and excited about what we do. We could see some big changes with the team or we could just put the same product on the floor.I guess we'll see if we trade or buy a draft pick, trade for Melo, and/or if CP3 decides to leave. Technically Blake could leave too if he really wants. So we are really at a cross roads this summer. If we don't buy a draft pick I'm interested to see if we can find a decent player that goes undrafted. (There's always a few in every draft)

Clemenza · Post #189 » by **Clemenza** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 8:47 pm

thanumba2clippersfan wrote:Now it's officially the offseason, the Warriors won like I thought they would. (I was rooting for the Cavs but I know the Warriors are the better team) I'm nervous and excited about what we do. We could see some big changes with the team or we could just put the same product on the floor.I guess we'll see if we trade or buy a draft pick, trade for Melo, and/or if CP3 decides to leave. Technically Blake could leave too if he really wants. So we are really at a cross roads this summer. If we don't buy a draft pick I'm interested to see if we can find a decent player that goes undrafted. (There's always a few in every draft)

How is this even something to look forward to with king of no-development Doc Rivers in charge? He's probably on the phone right now trying to see if Antoine Walker, Kendrick Perkins, or Metta World Peace has anything left in the tank. The Warriors played 2nd round rookie McCaw big minutes in a crucial game 5 of the Finals for crying out loud. Doc won't let a rookie touch the floor in a regular season game :banghead:

nickhx2 · Post #190 » by **nickhx2** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:45 pm

well we can always draft for talent with the possibility that doc gets axed at some point next season so not all hope would be lost

Ranma · Post #191 » by **Ranma** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:21 pm

I love Chris Paul and appreciate all he's done for the Clippers. I certainly want him back and hope he retires a Clipper with a championship ring on his finger, but if he's demanding a no-trade clause and willing to forgo the 5th-year guarantee we would offer him, then I will say farewell and good luck.

I'm not even a fan of offering a full maximum deal but am willing to accept it for CP3, but if he goes, Doc should follow him immediately out the door. While it would force our hand into a rebuild, I'm not exactly dreading the idea of reconstructing our roster if the alternative is to stick with the stagnant iteration we're currently enduring.

nickhx2 · Post #192 » by **nickhx2** » Tue Jun 13, 2017 10:33 pm

it'd be patently ridiculous to let cp3 go because we didn't wanna give the best pg in the nba whatever he wanted.

the franchise would be in complete ruins and we don't have the draft picks to recover in the event the team went into the tank.

Ranma · Post #193 » by **Ranma** » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:00 am

nickhx2 wrote:it'd be patently ridiculous to let cp3 go because we didn't wanna give the best pg in the nba whatever he wanted.

the franchise would be in complete ruins and we don't have the draft picks to recover in the event the team went into the tank.

I don't want Paul to go but I'm not inclined to continue bending to the whims of the players who got us Doc in the first place. The Clippers can offer him more money than anyone else even if we don't give him the full max, so if he wants to leave that money on the table to go to another team that would have to gut itself to accommodate him only to be not that much better than what we could offer him in terms of talent, then by all means, let him leave. I'm no longer in the mood to be strong-armed by clueless players and former-players-turned-coach-GMs.

Thanks to the Stepien Rule, we still have our first-rounder in the 2018 NBA Draft, which is anticipated to be top-heavy and deep. If CP3 (and Blake Griffin, for that matter) is unwilling to compromise in allowing us to build a decent roster around him to pursue his coveted championship ring, then he can go to San Antonio and spin his wheels there for less money and endorsement opportunities.

We've already done quite a bit to accommodate him including bringing Doc aboard and offering a retirement contract when he's past his prime. Loyalty cuts both ways. If what we're offering is not good enough, then maybe it's time to rethink things. Why should the Spurs be the team that benefits from him taking a paycut? Why should the onus of commitment be so one-sided?

If Paul leaves, then we can trade Jordan for whatever we can get before the season starts, then use our 2018 first-rounder to start the rebuild even if we don't have a 2019 first-round pick. At the very least, we'd immediately stop the practice of trading away first-rounders. We wouldn't have to re-sign Griffin on a max deal and if he leaves, it would free up the cap space to start over.

I'm not saying that I prefer that Paul leaves, but I'm not comfortable with us continuing to extend ourselves for a competitive window that is almost shut right now only to deal with the cap and rebuild later on with the headache of albatross commitments. Basically, it's up to Chris Paul if he wants to continue on with the goodwill of working together to accomplish something, but I'm not willing to acquiesce to threatening demands from a player who's on the downside of his career and has had multiple ailment issues previously.

Blindly jumping through hoops at the whims of a stubborn and aging player who hasn't won anything yet seems ill-advised to me, especially when it means that we'll continue on with business as usual under Doc's leadership or rather lack thereof. We'd arguably be better off starting the rebuild during Golden State's era of dominance instead of middling through and pushing the rebuild to a later date but with more encumbrance.

However, if Jerry West were to come aboard with a new executive and personnel team to remake our front office as well as push Doc's influence to the side, then I'd have a different attitude about "giving in" or otherwise committing to Paul.

Clemenza · Post #194 » by **Clemenza** » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:35 am

Ranma wrote:
nickhx2 wrote:it'd be patently ridiculous to let cp3 go because we didn't wanna give the best pg in the nba whatever he wanted.

the franchise would be in complete ruins and we don't have the draft picks to recover in the event the team went into the tank.

I don't want Paul to go but I'm not inclined to continue bending to the whims of the players who got us Doc in the first place. The Clippers can offer him more money than anyone else even if we don't give him the full max, so if he wants to leave that money on the table to go to another team that would have to gut itself to accommodate him only to be not that much better than what we could offer him in terms of talent, then by all means, let him leave. I'm no longer in the mood to be strong-armed by clueless players and former-players-turned-coach-GMs.

Thanks to the Stepien Rule, we still have our first-rounder in the 2018 NBA Draft, which is anticipated to be top-heavy and deep. If CP3 (and Blake Griffin, for that matter) is unwilling to compromise in allowing us to build a decent roster around him to pursue his coveted championship ring, then he can go to San Antonio and spin his wheels there for less money and endorsement opportunities.

We've already done quite a bit to accommodate him including bringing Doc aboard and offering a retirement contract when he's past his prime. Loyalty cuts both ways. If what we're offering is not good enough, then maybe it's time to rethink things. Why should the Spurs be the team that benefits from him taking a paycut? Why should the onus of commitment be so one-sided?

If Paul leaves, then we can trade Jordan for whatever we can get before the season starts, then use our 2018 first-rounder to start the rebuild even if we don't have a 2019 first-round pick. At the very least, we'd immediately stop the practice of trading away first-rounders. We wouldn't have to re-sign Griffin on a max deal and if he leaves, it would free up the cap space to start over.

I'm not saying that I prefer that Paul leaves, but I'm not comfortable with us continuing to extend ourselves for a competitive window that is almost shut right now only to deal with the cap and rebuild later on with the headache of albatross commitments. Basically, it's up to Chris Paul if he wants to continue on with the goodwill of working together to accomplish something, but I'm not willing to acquiesce to threatening demands from a player who's on the downside of his career and has had multiple ailment issues previously.

Blindly jumping through hoops at the whims of a stubborn and aging player who hasn't won anything yet seems ill-advised to me, especially when it means that we'll continue on with business as usual under Doc's leadership or rather lack thereof. We'd arguably be better off starting the rebuild during Golden State's era of dominance instead of middling through and pushing the rebuild to a later date but with more encumbrance.

However, if Jerry West were to come aboard with a new executive and personnel team to remake our front office as well as push Doc's influence to the side, then I'd have a different attitude about "giving in" or otherwise committing to Paul.

Please please ditch the red text. Its not cool or cute. You're a good poster, why do this to your writing?

Ranma · Post #195 » by **Ranma** » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:44 am

Clemenza wrote:Please please ditch the red text. Its not cool or cute. You're a good poster, why do this to your writing?

It's orange text, actually, and I'm not trying to be cool or cute. It's something I've been doing in the forums I post in to make it easier to differentiate speakers in the conversation from my text for reference. This especially helps if and when I quote multiple posters in my responses. If you would rather that I choose a different color, then by all means, give me a suggestion. I actually used to post in green font until I was actually informed in this forum that it typically signifies sarcasm.

Clemenza · Post #196 » by **Clemenza** » Wed Jun 14, 2017 1:49 am

Ranma wrote:
Clemenza wrote:Please please ditch the red text. Its not cool or cute. You're a good poster, why do this to your writing?

It's orange text, actually, and I'm not trying to be cool or cute. It's something I've been doing in the forums I post in to make it easier to differentiate speakers in the conversation from my text for reference. This especially helps if and when I quote multiple posters in my responses. If you would rather that I choose a different color, then by all means, give me a suggestion. I actually used to post in green font until I was actually informed in this forum that it means sarcasm.

We know who you are, no need for color font or caps lock. To hard on the eyes trying to read 4 paragraphs or more on a response in red or orange. As for font color just use black. But its the internet where you can do what you want.. never mind me.

Ranma · Post #197 » by **Ranma** » Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:02 am

Clemenza wrote:We know who you are, no need for color font or caps lock. To hard on the eyes trying to read 4 paragraphs or more on a response in red or orange. As for font color just use black. But its the internet where you can do what you want.. never mind me.

The color change is partially intended for others, but it also helps me go back and reference my own comments since I've needed to cite my own words in subsequent discussions. Out of courtesy, I'll try this shade of dark blue to see if it will do. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Clemenza · Post #198 » by **Clemenza** » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:29 am

Ranma wrote:
Clemenza wrote:We know who you are, no need for color font or caps lock. To hard on the eyes trying to read 4 paragraphs or more on a response in red or orange. As for font color just use black. But its the internet where you can do what you want.. never mind me.

The color change is partially intended for others, but it also helps me go back and reference my own comments since I've needed to cite my own words in subsequent discussions. Out of courtesy, I'll try this shade of dark blue to see if it will do. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

much better.. thank you

Ranma · Post #199 » by **Ranma** » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:51 am

Clemenza wrote:much better.. thank you

You're welcome.

Ranma · Post #200 » by **Ranma** » Wed Jun 14, 2017 3:54 am

Ranma wrote:Even if he wasn't, we had a chance to select Patrick McCaw, whom the Clippers did bring in for pre-draft workouts. McCaw is already showing more promise and contributing for a better team albeit with modest statistics than our currently injured 2016 first-round pick. Obviously, it's too early to make a final call, but given the respective track records of the Clippers and Warriors, who would you bet on making the right call?

Read on Twitter