2017 Offseason Thread

[Roscoe Sheed]

In fairness, Brice Johnson was not injured for most of the season

[Ranma]

In fairness, Brice Johnson was not injured for most of the season

True but do you honestly think Doc would have played Brice Johnson much even if he was healthy? The kid was inconsistent throughout summer league games while Diamond Stone was the more polished prospect and Stone didn't end up getting much playing time either. Brice looked like he needed to have his mindset in order as well as develop his physical skills and we know how inept or otherwise disinterested Doc is with regards to talent development. Injury just allowed Doc another opportunity to make an excuse for the continued lack of contribution from our draft picks.

Meanwhile, Golden State found time for a rookie (we passed on the opportunity to draft by trading down in the second round) to play in the championship series despite having a more stacked roster than the Clippers, who still make a habit of not playing young players without the Rivers surname.

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nickhx2]

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.

unfortunately i don't have a lot of time to reply in depth the way i want to. but i basically look at it as "would i rather have doc + cp3? and potentially cp3 + no doc (who can't have much leash left)? or doc and no cp3?

it sounds a lot like you're angry and spiteful against cp3 for insisting doc be here. but as events played out that's pretty much what most fans wanted at the time. like who in their right mind, at the time, would have said "nah i'll pass on both cp3 and upgrading from vdn to doc rivers" ? so i can't hate on cp3 for that and moreover i think cp3 deserves his due. and i don't see at all how he should be punished for doc being a garbage POBO which we couldn't have foreseen.

there's also this weird assumption by so many people that the end of this next contract will be cp3 being an albatross. and not only do i see him still being effective, he will still also have immense value throughout, especially in the middle of it. it's just simply bad management to let him go for nothing. like if he was 35 already and asking for a 5 year super max yeah sure that's probably crazy. but he's not 35 and he's dealt with more freak accidents than recurring injuries like steve nash and his back. that gives me a lot less pause for concern.

anyway, cp3's not holding the franchise hostage or anything which is partly what you're making him sound like. even if he is who cares, we should just do the smart things for the franchise instead of making emotional reactions that deprive us of the maximum return possible. my hope is ballmer runs the next few years like a business owner and not a fan.

also blue is much easier to read

[Ranma]

unfortunately i don't have a lot of time to reply in depth the way i want to. but i basically look at it as "would i rather have doc + cp3? and potentially cp3 + no doc (who can't have much leash left)? or doc and no cp3?

it sounds a lot like you're angry and spiteful against cp3 for insisting doc be here. but as events played out that's pretty much what most fans wanted at the time. like who in their right mind, at the time, would have said "nah i'll pass on both cp3 and upgrading from vdn to doc rivers" ? so i can't hate on cp3 for that and moreover i think cp3 deserves his due. and i don't see at all how he should be punished for doc being a garbage POBO which we couldn't have foreseen.

there's also this weird assumption by so many people that the end of this next contract will be cp3 being an albatross. and not only do i see him still being effective, he will still also have immense value throughout, especially in the middle of it. it's just simply bad management to let him go for nothing. like if he was 35 already and asking for a 5 year super max yeah sure that's probably crazy. but he's not 35 and he's dealt with more freak accidents than recurring injuries like steve nash and his back. that gives me a lot less pause for concern.

anyway, cp3's not holding the franchise hostage or anything which is partly what you're making him sound like. even if he is who cares, we should just do the smart things for the franchise instead of making emotional reactions that deprive us of the maximum return possible. my hope is ballmer runs the next few years like a business owner and not a fan.

also blue is much easier to read

Yes, I am angry about our situation and the events that have led us to this point, however, I'm not mad at CP3 for bringing Doc aboard. I was among those who wanted to upgrade from Vinny Del Negro as I always viewed him as a stopgap measure. While I was not happy about giving up a first-round pick and handing him the President of Basketball Operations title just for the "privilige" of paying him an exorbitant amount of money to bail on a worse position that he was in with the Celtics at the time, I accepted it as the cost of doing business and even gave Doc the benefit of the doubt to allow him time to prove me wrong.

Things are different now thanks to Doc's squandering of assets and opportunities. Despite my bitterness, I actually am thinking about this from a business position. First and to be clear, I don't want Chris Paul to leave. I said I'm willing to give him the max deal but I'd prefer not to. I certainly don't want to hear any more demands from his part whether it's trading for such-and-such player or a no-trade clause. Like I said, if he wants to leave $53 million on the table, good luck in finding someone to offer him such a deal when he turns 36 after four years.

Chris Paul was my favorite current NBA player before he became a Clipper and he likely still is. I want the organization to do what is right by bringing in the likes of Jerry and, hopefully, Ryan West. It's known that Chris and Doc are close, which should be no surprise as he and Byron Scott were close when he played for him. Remember how we were afraid Scott would be our coach after VDN because of that relationship? That's why it was a relief to get Doc. I just want this organization to be run by basketball people.
I no longer want to hear from either Chris or Doc pushing for each other's agenda any longer, because quite frankly, they've steered us in the wrong direction.

You cite the worst-case scenario of Paul leaving with Doc still with us. Well, if CP3 leaves, there'd be no reason for Doc to be here.
Ballmer should fire him on the spot if that were the case. The dude is personally financing his own arena project; I think he can afford to eat Doc's contract. And even if he won't, Doc might be best for us in tanking seasons, which I don't really approve of.

Maybe we can get the Celtics to offer their 2nd overall pick in 2017 for Blake Griffin in a sign-and-trade if Boston somehow convinces Gordon Hayward to go there. The Horford-Crowder package suggested in another thread makes sense to me. If we can't get their pick this year, then hopefully, they'll return our 2019 first-rounder from the Jeff-Green trade (via Memphis). Then, we could dump DeAndre Jordan for whatever we can get and our rebuild could start right away.

You seem to argue that losing Chris Paul for nothing would be catastrophic. While I'm not exactly pushing for that to happen,
I'm arguing that it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing if it does happen. Of course, that assumes Ballmer continues to work to put in place actual executive leadership who knows what it's doing.

Thanks for your input on the dark-blue font. I remember why I didn't use it before. I wanted to make it easier to find hyperlinked text faster and wanted to avoid having the colors close to the shade that was similar to the one used for links. I'll continue to stick with blue for the overall benefit.

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

[og15]

Maybe you can try purple, lol

[og15]

My apologies, og15, as I've been meaning to follow up to your reply to my previous post on page 5 of this thread. I've been preoccupied with things including the NFL draft previously and now the upcoming MLB and NHL drafts as well as the NBA draft, of course, but there's little incentive for me to do so given the Clippers' lack of involvement in the proceedings.

In any case, here are my responses to your previous posts.

I think the reason you can't get on board with that is because that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that the majority of he draft picks haven't been that bad. Bullock was a reasonable pick. Again, like I said, Wilcox was an awful pick, so obviously I'm not saying that Doc's drafts were not bad in any way shape or form if I'm saying that Wilcox was a horrible pick.

Dawson despite being old was a good pick for that range. Johnson seems like a decent pick. Stone is the kind of pick we want from the second round, young potential guys. Michineau, again, I'm going from a limited view, but the pick didn't make sense to me, but he is supposedly another potential pick and even a draft and stash which goes against all what Doc did with his first two drafts.

Aside from Branden Dawson, ironically enough, all of Doc's picks have been questionable including Diamond Stone since it required us to trade down and pass up better prospects in order to do so. Let's start by asking a simple question: have we directly benefited from Doc's draft selections? The answer is no since none of the players drafted by him have yet to contribute in any significant fashion.

You cite Reggie Bullock as a success story by pointing out that he's playing for another team now albeit shooting 39.3% FG and with a scoring average of 3 points on 11.1 minutes per game. Despite the faulty opinion of those who don't know the meaning of consensus best-player-available, Bullock was not the sensible option when the Clippers took him 25th overall in 2013. Had Doc actually gone with the player most considered BPA at the time, the Clippers might be benefiting from a player currently averaging 22.8 minutes a game and shooting 41.2% from beyond the arc to score 10.7 PPG. Of course, that assumes Doc would play Allen Crabbe or any other non-blood relative, which points to another problem with Doc's drafting.

A successful draft entails at least two things: identifying talent and developing it. Doc consistently fails at this on both counts. In Bullock, he chose an older and less athletic version of Crabbe who was generally recognized as the better player. He further devalued Bullock's trade value to the point that we shipped him off for his son Austin Rivers, who was on the verge of being out of the league. I happened to call at the time that I thought that trade could work out because I posited that Doc would be one of the few people who could get the most out of his son when others like Coach K couldn't. However, the fact remains that Bullock was basically only valuable to be traded for a throw-away player at the time. The fact that we've since benefited from that particular trade does not change how devalued Bullock was at the time of the transaction.

You've already acknowledged the C.J. Wilcox pick as a failure, which was similar to Doc's previous strategy for selecting Bullock,
and there's really no point to discussing Dawson given that he was 5 picks away from being an undrafted free agent, so we'll move on to our latest draftees.

If you recall, I advocated for drafting Brice Johnson and even signed off on the Diamond Stone pick at the time, but I wasn't exactly thrilled with how our draft went. Doc mentioned that David Michineau was going to be given a chance at a roster spot but that quickly changed to him being a draft-and-stash selection. If we were going to go that route, I preferred the more talented Furkan Korkmaz. Brice would likely have been available with our 33rd overall pick in the second round. 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? Not only that, the Warriors bought the McCaw pick from the Bucks, so why couldn't the Clippers do that instead of trading down to get lesser talents? Not to mention we had the opportunity to draft projected possible lottery picks in either Deyonta Davis and Skal Labissiere.

Was the issue Doc not wanting to play the draft picks or was it him getting players who were not worth playing or weren't even young players who needed to be developed? Bullock's minutes were right in line with the way other coaches on 50+ win teams played similar players. His development was actually good if we're comparing to the rest of the league. Wilcox, what was the point of him on the team in the first place? I didn't care that Wilcox didn't play, the pick never made sense to me. Dawson even stepping on an NBA court as a rookie was an accomplishment for the average player drafted in his range. Just getting to be in practice with an NBA team was actually more than most guys in his range get, so I can't really criticize that one if I'm being honest. Johnson suffered with injuries, but he should have got more burn later in the season. Stone got the right treatment, he needed a ton of work and I've looked at how other coaches in he league develop players like him, and playing them in the D-League for even basically the whole season is what they mostly do.

As illustrated above and obvious to pretty much everyone, Doc is at fault on both counts. He's failed with Bullock to get him to contribute at any level despite our desperate need for help on the wing even though Bullock was able to find some playing time elsewhere albeit in modest fashion. Bullock basically is a bust at this point, but Doc was the one who selected him after scouting him himself and working him out in pre-draft workouts. The fact that he was the one who chose him and couldn't fit him into his own system is telling of how inept he is as a talent evaluator as well as developer.

It is Doc's fault, but it is the organizations fault for not putting someone in the role that Frank currently has right now before. I don't think it is a coincidence that when Frank was put in the Executive VP of Basketball Ops role, then suddenly changes were being made and there was a direction. You can't spend all year coaching and have time to seriously learn and know how to run an organization and front office, etc. Doc basically got the job because of the whole Sterling fiasco, but he obviously barely had any clue what he was really doing. He basically knew the minimum of what needed to be done, and maybe he could have been able to pick it up quickly and get things going well, but guess what? He had to coach and prepare for coaching.

In the end, my feeling is that Doc should have never had the role, but from his limited view as a coach with that role, his draft picks weren't all bad. Even trading draft picks in itself is not bad, it just depends on what you are trading those draft picks for. 82games.com back when they were still relevant did a study on the expected player level from draft picks, so of course trading a pick can make sense.

Yes, as I've recently said elsewhere, Ballmer is at fault for letting this situation continue and addressing it too late, but Doc is really the one primarily at fault here. He was the one that demanded that responsibility in the first place and continues to hold significant influence with final say in matters despite shifting some duties (and blame) to others now in a too little and too late fashion. Since he's the one who still holds final say and is being paid handsomely in that role, he is the one directly responsible for our draft failings. Ballmer is just enabling this dysfunction to continue, which is significant, but one could easily argue that Doc took advantage of an inexperienced owner for his own benefit to the detriment of the organization, which to me is obviously the case here.

The concept of diminishing returns with late draft picks is all well and good but it does not explain the thorough lack of success nor excuse the disregard with which Doc has practically given away picks to cover up his ineptitude in other areas of his GM duties.

I draft picks haven't really been bad though as much as Doc gets hated on for them.

Reggie Bullock: Good pick if he didn't have injury and seemingly confidence issues. He made sense. He got us Rivers who is actually now considered a decent piece for a trade around the league, so Bullock basically has panned out in the end

CJ Wilcox: Awful pick that made no sense, still don't understand the logic or lack thereof

Branden Dawson: He was the 56th pick, and I don't know what a bad pick is supposed to be in the range, but I think he's still the only pick in the 50's from that draft to get any NBA minutes at all up until now

Brice Johnson: Seems like a solid pick, but he was injured all season, it certainly made sense and he seems to currently have skills and still have some room for growth

Diamond Stone: Solid project bench pick in the second round, the kind of players a team like this should pick in the 2nd round

David Michineau: Seems like a wasted of a pick, young (22 years old), but not super young and he still needs development, don't get that one tbh. Still an awful outside shooter (19.5% on 2.8 3PA in 16-17), still not really a PG, and still turnover prone (4.0 tov/40). I guess the idea is for him to be a defensive combo guard at 6'4, but then he's also just 180 lbs and weak, so he can't really help much at SG

Outside of Wilcox, the first round picks have been fine and made sense. The second round picks have also all been fine, except Michineau is still a confusing one. I know as fans we love hyperbole and over-reaction, but the way people talk about the teams drafting, you would think good starters and/or stars who were almost obvious picks were consistently being picked in the Clippers range and we were missing out. That's not the case. I personally don't like the idea of just going back to the draft and looking at any pick after a teams pick who is better and say "look they should have chosen him". Generally another 5,6 team, including very good drafting teams also passed up on those same players.

Also to be fair to the front office, there was a very weak scouting presence for most years, and Ballmer along with Frank just overhauled and added multiple jobs and positions in all these departments last off-season, so the team was already behind and is currently playing catch up anyways.

To me the real issue isn't really the players they did pick, it's not having enough picks. At the range the Clippers are picking, you are at best looking at a rotation player, not even a starter on average. It's when you have more picks that you're able to find a surprise. Since Doc joined, there have been 4 drafts. Technically the Clippers should have drafted 8 players, 4 first round and 4 second round. The Clippers have drafted 3 first round and 3 second round. Maybe you're thinking that 2 more draft picks is nothing, but it can make a difference in just giving you more options of players who could possibly give you something. The mid 2000's Suns aren't around anymore, but the Clippers also should certainly always be looking to buy picks.

Again, I disagree. Not having enough picks is a direct result of Doc's failing actions. He's responsible for our lack of opportunities to begin with and has blown the few opportunities that were given to him. We could and should have done better and it wouldn't have needed a basketball genius to do so despite our picks being in the latter portion of the draft. This is not a matter of playing armchair GM after the fact. His failings were obvious and pointed at from the moment he made them. Even looking back in a vacuum hasn't exactly portrayed his draft selections as being out-of-the-box or even competent at any level. If you still disagree,
then I don't know what more to say, so I'd have to agree to disagree with you on this one.

I'll just be real with you, I just don't care enough about trying to rationalize or defend any of Doc's past moves to put time into debating for him

[Ranma]

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.

Maybe we can get the Celtics to offer their 2nd overall pick in 2017 for Blake Griffin in a sign-and-trade if Boston somehow convinces Gordon Hayward to go there. The Horford-Crowder package suggested in another thread makes sense to me. If we can't get their pick this year, then hopefully, they'll return our 2019 first-rounder from the Jeff-Green trade (via Memphis). Then, we could dump DeAndre Jordan for whatever we can get and our rebuild could start right away.

You seem to argue that losing Chris Paul for nothing would be catastrophic. While I'm not exactly pushing for that to happen,
I'm arguing that it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing if it does happen.

I just realized something based on the tweet below. We wouldn't necessarily need to trade for our pick back since we have lottery protection on the 2019 first-round selection Boston currently owns. That protection is only in place for 2 years before converting that owed pick into a second-rounder in 2022. It would unbelievably make the Jeff Green trade a good one if that were to happen.

So if the Clippers had to deconstruct the roster in a rebuilding movement because Chris Paul opted to sign with the Spurs, Rockets or wherever else, we would not be in "compete ruins" and actually have the picks necessary to recover. Plus, we could get more if we trade DeAndre Jordan and trade away Griffin if we re-sign him. Theoretically, we could do the same thing after next season if we re-sign Paul too.

Read on Twitter

[rockets22]

Chris Paul sees D'antoni's offense and sees the numbers and success it give point guards so you can only imagine someone with his skillset can do in it. We might talking 14 to 15 assists a game with those shooters and pick and rolls he will have. Personally I think he is staying with the Clippers but to play with Harden and the Rockets offense plus the no income tax factor is certainly something that will give him pause.

[og15]

Chris Paul sees D'antoni's offense and sees the numbers and success it give point guards so you can only imagine someone with his skillset can do in it. We might talking 14 to 15 assists a game with those shooters and pick and rolls he will have. Personally I think he is staying with the Clippers but to play with Harden and the Rockets offense plus the no income tax factor is certainly something that will give him pause.

I suppose I can see the idea for the Rockets, that while Harden did a very good job, and they had regular season success, you can still see that he doesn't have the level of decision making of a guy like Paul for one, and secondly, the team still does need another high level shot creator. With all these things though, you never know what players truly want to do, but the time is counting down.

D'Antoni has shown that he can integrate many different players into his offense as long as they have the skillsets he desires. Nash/Diaw as dual playmakers with the Suns, even Nash with Joe Johnson his first year with Phoenix, and we can even think of the Spurs with a combo of Parker/Ginobili, and there are ways to integrate two players like that.

Who knows though...

[Quake Griffin]

When is Neil Oshey's contract up?
Could we get him back somehow? Wouldn't having him and Logo in the FO be fantastic?

He continues to make good moves in Portland. He just doesn't have the superstar. He's proven he can get the superstar.

[Ranma]

When is Neil Oshey's contract up?
Could we get him back somehow? Wouldn't having him and Logo in the FO be fantastic?

He continues to make good moves in Portland. He just doesn't have the superstar. He's proven he can get the superstar.

Olshey's contract extension runs through the upcoming 2017-18, however, the Blazers have a team option for the 2018-19 season. He has the same job title as Doc so we wouldn't be able to offer him just the GM title.

Also, to borrow from the discussion in the Pursuing the Logo (Jerry West) thread, David Griffin is still running things for the Cavs in a hectic environment where he still does not have a contract extension from a obstinately demanding and meddling owner. Griffin, like West previously, is free to pursue other options in July.

Read on Twitter

Joe Freeman, Oregonian (1/8/15)

The Trail Blazers on Thursday further stabilized their front office, signing general manager Neil Olshey to a four-year contract extension and promoting him to President of Basketball Operations.

The extension, which includes three guaranteed years and a team option, is a just reward for Olshey, who, in less than three years, has transformed the Blazers from an NBA Lottery afterthought in the throes of a roster rebuild into a Western Conference power.
...

The four-year extension begins with the 2015-16 season.

Trail Blazers Reward General Manager Neil Olshey with Multiyear Contract Extension

Read on Twitter

[MartinToVaught]

Not impressed by Olshey and don't really want him back. How soon we forget that he was responsible for the disastrous Baron trade (I know DTS demanded a salary dump, but he should have found a way to do it without trading away the first overall pick), drafting Aminu over Paul George, the Gomes/Foye/Cook offseason, and overpaying for fossils like Chauncey and Caron. Sure, he made the CP3 trade, but he inherited all those assets from Baylor and MDSr. In Portland, he's run up the third-biggest payroll in the NBA for a team that backed into the 8th seed. Again, no thanks.

I'm also not that high on Griffin. He's taken the Doc approach with the Cavs, throwing too much money at aging veterans and overpaying to "keep the gang together" at all costs, even if there are better options. That team is so dependent on LeBron, they would be lottery status without him.

It's a moot point anyway, since if West brings in a new GM, it'll probably be his son Ryan. Short of that, why not give someone new a chance, like Mike Zarren, Brian Pauga or Brian Wright?

[nickhx2]

imagine if we could snap up both griffin and ryan west. then trade jordan for paul george and re-sign cp3/blake. then chase after lebron next season.

tell me how to dream bigger

[ejftw]

Re-sign CP.

S&T Blake for Paul George.

Deal Rivers + S&T JJ for Melo.

Paul - FA - Melo - George - DJ

[Wammy Giveaway]

Re-sign CP.

S&T Blake for Paul George.

Deal Rivers + S&T JJ for Melo.

Paul - FA - Melo - George - DJ

You know, if Luc Mbah A Moute comes back, we could have Paul-George-Moute-Anthony-Jordan.

Or would you prefer a shooting guard or dual guard?

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nickhx2]

it can happennnnnnnnnnnn

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter