Clippers Trade Jamal Crawford, 2018 Houston 1st and Diamond Stone for Danilo Gallinari

[nickhx2]

i agree, the team shouldn't have any issues making the playoffs. i feel like the team's like mid 40's at worst to low 50s-ish. i don't wanna say anything ridiculous that discounts the impact of chris paul being gone, but not having paul pierce/crawford screwing the team up will be a big benefit.

honestly it all depends on what kind of player blake's gonna be. if his athleticism has been sapped and isn't coming back, we'll be a good team. if it comes back we can be a pretty good team. we will see though.

[Ranma]

is this trade finalized ?

Tomorrow.

[og15]

The health situation is the issue. I've heard different reports on when Blake will return which could be a problem. 1-2 months of no Blake can make a huge difference in the end of season record. It's always "if", because if the Clippers had been healthier in one of the past seasons they would have had at least one or two 60 win seasons. The Clippers starters for about 4 straight seasons have been a top 3-5 five man unit with over 200 mins in the league. The bench has been bad, so does it somewhat balance out with a better bench and more depth to make the team still pretty good? It's hard to know. Denver in 12-13 won 57 games with a lot of depth and borderline All-Star talent, Clippers have that capability (not 57 wins, but the type of team). We'll see, it's hard to gauge.

Also what will the defense look like?

Sent from my LG-D852 using RealGM mobile app

[nickhx2]

will look a lot better if we can get luc back

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[esqtvd]

I realized that I forgot to mention something that og15 previously brought up in our prior draft discussion, which I think is pertinent, and I don't believe has been pointed out more comprehensively before. The data is 10 years old but covers a 20-year span of draft statistics.

Based on the presented data for the first-round, even in a worst-case scenario of having the 29th overall selection slot, any team has at least a 25% chance of getting a role player at minimum for the roster with a first-round selection. However, the average rate of success based on the same criteria is approximately 36.6% for draft slots 25-30 towards the bottom of the first round. Furthermore, any pick higher than that range with the exception of the 22nd overall selection slot has an over 50% rate of success.

Of course, "success" will be defined differently the higher the draft position, but the fact remains that a team typically has a better chance than not of getting a player who will contribute just by virtue of utilizing a first-round selection.

All of Doc Rivers's picks for the Clippers, on the other hand, have so far yielded nothing but deep bench players, busts, and players who never played in the NBA. Even with regard to his self-imposed limited opportunities, Doc has drafted worse than can be expectedly probable regardless of draft position in the first round. If you can believe it, he has actually lowered the Clippers' already low historical rate of success.

I'm just saying that it takes a special kind of moron to approach the draft with such disregard as to reach such high levels of ineptitude. Congrats on this remarkable feat of failure, Doc.

Roland Beech, 82games.com (2009)

Thanks to an assist from the wonderful Basketball-Reference.com web site, which kindly publishes year by year charts of draft picks along with career basic stats next to the player, I gathered together the last twenty NBA Drafts (1989-2008) with an array of intended analysis in mind.
...

NBA Draft Picks: Expected Performance


Roland Beech, 82games.com (2009)

...

Then there's the Clippers of the Korolev (#12), Randy Woods (#16), Kimble (#8), Ely (#12), Dooling (#10), Livingston (#4), Olowokandi (#1) horror show. Elgin may want to rethink his discrimination lawsuit, seems like there was some just cause perhaps at work here. The Clippers had 11 top ten picks in the twenty years, and only one of these top ten guys (Odom taken at #4) became a star. Now of course, you could argue and I might that the bigger issue isn't the drafting but the player development once the player gets to the team...more on this later!

NBA Draft Analysis: Best/Worst Drafting Teams

Doc's drafting is hard to put a finger on. First, a very small sample size. Remember, none of genius GM Danny Ainge's last 20 picks has turned into an all-star. The Clips had also traded away 3 2nd-rounders before Doc got here, and the 1st they traded to acquire Doc was turned into a player no longer in the NBA. [A late 20s pick. Ainge drafted RJ Hunter, last seen with the Long Island Nets.]

How responsible was Doc for Bullock and Wilcox? The picks that he did trade, late 20s, turned into nothing much in the hands of other teams.

The entire Clippers scouting department was replaced in September of 2016; yes, he probably should have moved quicker. Yes, Brice Johnson is on his head, Diamond was trade fodder, and I do suspect that Michineau, taken with the extra pick he dealt that turned into Chieck Diallo will be a bust. Since Diallo was redundant at PF after Doc picked Brice, it's more a question of either/or, and a fair question.

But the main point is that Memphis already turned the much-mourned Jeff Green 1st-round pick into a couple of 2nd-rounders, marginally better than the ones we picked up for cash, and the FRP used to dump Dudley was turned by the Bucks into a player who ended up getting waived by the Nets!

And yes, I'm familiar with that chart. I don't think it proved Doc is a moron. We missed out on Kyle Anderson, true, but I think it's not a fatal error.

[kylem4711]

Later Jamal.

Sent from my Pixel XL using RealGM mobile app

[Ranma]

Doc's drafting is hard to put a finger on. First, a very small sample size. Remember, none of genius GM Danny Ainge's last 20 picks has turned into an all-star. The Clips had also traded away 3 2nd-rounders before Doc got here, and the 1st they traded to acquire Doc was turned into a player no longer in the NBA. [A late 20s pick. Ainge drafted RJ Hunter, last seen with the Long Island Nets.]

I can't believe I still have to go through this, especially since I've addressed every point in my previous posts, which you've apparently ignored or failed to comprehend. I know TucsonClip warned me, but I didn't think there would still be a Doc apologist left who actually cared about the welfare of the team.

First, Doc himself was the idiot who wasted the assets that limited his sample size to begin with. He can't be given credit for throwing away picks in bad deals. Those count as automatic failures and, as you're aware, we still owe a pick to Boston. Why are you bringing up second-round picks that were previously traded when we're primarily discussing first-round picks? Even in the second round he proved even more incompetent by trading down from the opportunity to draft Patrick McCaw for Diamond Stone and David Michineau.

And why in heaven's name are you giving Doc credit for other team's failures? What you don't realize is that draft picks represent possibilities before they are actually used. Just like a new car loses immediate value upon leaving the lot, a draft pick is worth less once it is used by someone else. If you don't believe me, I have some used lottery tickets to sell you.

Ainge picking R.J. Hunter is irrelevant when that pick could have also been used for Jordan Mickey or Montrezl Hazzell. If you really want your mind blown, maybe we could have traded up 2 spots in order to snipe Larry Nance, Jr. from the Lakers. Draft prospects are not assigned to teams since the whole point of a draft is for teams to be afforded the opportunity to choose their preferred prospects.

How responsible was Doc for Bullock and Wilcox? The picks that he did trade, late 20s, turned into nothing much in the hands of other teams.

Upon his arrival, Doc said that he was looking forward to having more control over the draft process. It was one of the big reasons he left Boston. After drafting Bullock, he bragged about how he scouted him in-person during games he watched when his son was still playing in college. Instead of learning from his mistake with the Bullock selection, he doubled down and picked Wilcox. Since then, he's shifted the responsibility more to Lawrence Frank. Yeah, I'd say he's totally responsible for those epic failures. Again, stop trying to misdirect the conversation by pointing to other team's handling of our former picks. That lame tactic only works with Trump supporters.

The entire Clippers scouting department was replaced in September of 2016; yes, he probably should have moved quicker. Yes, Brice Johnson is on his head, Diamond was trade fodder, and I do suspect that Michineau, taken with the extra pick he dealt that turned into Chieck Diallo will be a bust. Since Diallo was redundant at PF after Doc picked Brice, it's more a question of either/or, and a fair question.

Even though we finally started investing in more resources into the draft process, let's not forget that Doc and his cronies still populate the front office, which means they still have significant influence in how prospects are evaluated, developed, and who are actually picked. Doc has final say, after all, as he likes to still remind us whenever presented the opportunity.

Stone was not drafted with the intention of being used in a future deal since the trade happened a year after he was drafted. I even signed off on picking him back then at that particular draft slot despite protesting the trade down in order to do so. Again,
you narrowly focus too much on the results when you should be also concerned with the approach to drafting. You'd know this if you read the previous post I've cited for you.

Unlike Stone, Cheick Diallo was selected for the expressed purpose of trading down for David Michineau and Stone, so again, stop giving Doc credit for other team's failures. There were so many things wrong with his handling of that selection alone, which I've also already gone over in the aforementioned post I've cited, that I'll just touch on a few. Why trade down? Why pass on McCaw? Why not buy the pick used to draft McCaw like Golden State did instead of trading down?

Focusing on who was actually selected continues to miss the point of the draft. Like I said before, an unused draft pick represents possibilities, which in itself has inherent value. It is worth more in capable hands than it is in foolish ones, which unironically is why Doc and his apologist use that lame excuse for devaluing and otherwise wasting draft picks. It bears repeating since you don't seem to get such a rudimentary concept that I'll try this analogy: if a personal shopper is buying the wrong items and/or paying for them at an unreasonably expensive premium, you fire that employee instead of burning the money that he/she shops with. Draft picks are indeed currency whether as trade assets or to possibilities for a star player. Teams value them as such.

But the main point is that Memphis already turned the much-mourned Jeff Green 1st-round pick into a couple of 2nd-rounders, marginally better than the ones we picked up for cash, and the FRP used to dump Dudley was turned by the Bucks into a player who ended up getting waived by the Nets!

Again, how does what Memphis and Milwaukee do with our former assets after they are no longer under our control become relevant or excuse Doc's ineptitude? If I paid $100 to buy a used video game console, what does it matter whether the seller uses that money to purchase Apple stock or waste it on fidget spinners? How does that change or otherwise affect my decision to purchase the video game console?

I get what you're trying to do in attempting to equate other teams' failures to excuse Doc, but it only reaffirms that he belongs in the company of idiots. As has been pointed out by not only me but others as well, Golden State and San Antonio consistently value and make the most of draft picks. While you're trying to cozy up to the Bucks and Grizzlies, the rest of us are trying to catch up to the Spurs and Warriors.

And yes, I'm familiar with that chart. I don't think it proved Doc is a moron. We missed out on Kyle Anderson, true, but I think it's not a fatal error.

If you can't see the facts before you, then I have no hope or really the desire to cure you of your myopia. Why are you selectively limiting your scope to Kyle Anderson? If it hasn't been clear already, Doc has missed on all of his draft selections. End of story.

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[wassuphomeboy]

i have given this a thought and I think I see a consistent pattern and the difference between the fans on the rebuild side, and the other fans on the retool side.

those that are on our side ( the rebuild side) are mostly the fans who have been with this franchise for more than a decade or two, some going 3, even 4. we have seen the worst and remember all the little jubilant moments when we hit the jackpot or make it to the playoffs ( remember the Larry Brown Clips? or when we won the #1 pick BEFORE that pick turned into Olowokandi?) for us, we see how significantly, and fundamentally this franchise has changed for the better. we went from having the worst pro sports owner in history of sports in DTS to the best, richest one over night in Steve. we have had the most crappy front office people to getting the almighty Jerry West to oversee things. from Elton Brand and Cat Mobley days to current Blake era, we have seen rather consistent results. this group, we trust the mechanism we have been provided by Steve and Co.
I suppose the analogy I can give, is that under DTS, we were basically a 1993 Toshiba Satellite lab tap that took about 5 minutes to just to boot up. we also had some **** softwares in that machine( and let's say the software are the players that the lab tap is running) but every once in a while, something good comes along and you didn't mind waiting for it to function. you know you own a **** computer, but there was some joy of owning that piece of junk when that happens. suddenly, your rich uncle Steve bought you the latest, best hardware machine money can buy. it is so fast that you can run multiple programs simultaneously and each one of them are all fascinating, memory eating, incredibly talented, well made top of the line softwares. if you knew you can trust the hardware, then you wound't mind if some of the fascinating softwares you tried out for a short 'trial period' is over with, because you know uncle Steve will get you those or even better ones to run on the top machine he just got you.

the retool crowd, and there is nothing wrong with being part of it, seems to me at least that they are the younger crowd, if not by age, by their clipper fandom. they were hooked by our beloved when they saw flying dunking man in jersey #32, and the point god CP3 were throwing lobs from all over the court. for this crowd, because, as at least one particular poster from that crowd puts it, that we are "nostalgic" and "comfortable" to our losing ways, believes in this way because they have never been through such conditions and not knowing, at whichever the topic, creates fear. they fear we will spiral down and go right back into the deep abyss we came from and may never recover, or soon enough for them to enjoy it. these are the folks who would not even remember what 1993 Toshiba Satellite was. they have always had relatively newer machines, and always enjoyed solid to excellent software to go with it. you can even say they have good taste, or have been privileged, depending on how you look at it. there is nothing wrong with these folks to say they will not downgrade. if one was born and raised not to accept nothing but the best, that's fine. that's the same reason why I moved my children to rural Oregon, away from my urban LA childhood memories. what this crowd do not see however, is that we already have the best hardware. nobody in pro sports have a deeper pocket than Steve. nobody has proven to be a best executive than Jerry West. even with having basic, start up programs in your machine, if you have the experience to understand the context, you know it is only a matter of time until things get better. but even this idea, only comes with having gone through the bad machines and times.

anywho, I'm sorry to leave such a lengthy post about really, nothing that anyone asked about, but just wanted to say I concur with both Ranma and Quake about valuing picks. we have the best hardware, it is inevitable that we get to have our hands on some of the best softwares that will be available. it's okay if we miss some, but by also hiring the best talent evaluator, we will have a better success % wise than others. if you can have that, then it is impossible not to succeed in a long run. having more picks, gives us more chances to shoot the dart.

okay, I'm done with this post.

I will freely admit I am indeed more impatient than most other fans on a personal level.

I do want to clarify my personal perspective on this matter though. I'm not a "new" Clippers fan. I've been a fan since before CP3/Blake(casually since LO was drafted as I was a kid then, then diehard after we got Sam I Am).

I remember, even in the Elgin Baylor days, the Clips rarely bottomed out to the level of the Sixers/Nets/Lakers(from memory, only the 2 seasons before the EB trade and the year before we drafted Blake). There has usually been exciting young talent, from EB/LO/QRich to Sam/Cat through EJ/Blake and Lob City, reasons to be hopeful for the future through these years, and many good memories.

For me, I just want this team to win the title, because I know what everything else is like already.

It's good to have faith, but personally I would also like to see more concrete steps to get the team back to a contending level. I hope to get more people to see where I'm coming from but that's just me

Please don't let my personal opinions take away from your fandom of the team or anything like that though. It's really nothing personal

[Neddy]

^and none taken!

[esqtvd]

Doc's drafting is hard to put a finger on. First, a very small sample size. Remember, none of genius GM Danny Ainge's last 20 picks has turned into an all-star. The Clips had also traded away 3 2nd-rounders before Doc got here, and the 1st they traded to acquire Doc was turned into a player no longer in the NBA. [A late 20s pick. Ainge drafted RJ Hunter, last seen with the Long Island Nets.]

I can't believe I still have to go through this, especially since I've addressed every point in my previous posts, which you've apparently ignored or failed to comprehend. I know TucsonClip warned me, but I didn't think there would still be a Doc apologist left who actually cared about the welfare of the team.

First, Doc himself was the idiot who wasted the assets that limited his sample size to begin with. He can't be given credit for throwing away picks in bad deals. Those count as automatic failures and, as you're aware, we still owe a pick to Boston. Why are you bringing up second-round picks that were previously traded when we're primarily discussing first-round picks? Even in the second round he proved even more incompetent by trading down from the opportunity to draft Patrick McCaw for Diamond Stone and David Michineau.

And why in heaven's name are you giving Doc credit for other team's failures? What you don't realize is that draft picks represent possibilities before they are actually used. Just like a new car loses immediate value upon leaving the lot, a draft pick is worth less once it is used by someone else. If you don't believe me, I have some used lottery tickets to sell you.

Ainge picking R.J. Hunter is irrelevant when that pick could have also been used for Jordan Mickey or Montrezl Hazzell. If you really want your mind blown, maybe we could have traded up 2 spots in order to snipe Larry Nance, Jr. from the Lakers. Draft prospects are not assigned to teams since the whole point of a draft is for teams to be afforded the opportunity to choose their preferred prospects.

How responsible was Doc for Bullock and Wilcox? The picks that he did trade, late 20s, turned into nothing much in the hands of other teams.

Upon his arrival, Doc said that he was looking forward to having more control over the draft process. It was one of the big reasons he left Boston. After drafting Bullock, he bragged about how he scouted him in-person during games he watched when his son was still playing in college. Instead of learning from his mistake with the Bullock selection, he doubled down and picked Wilcox. Since then, he's shifted the responsibility more to Lawrence Frank. Yeah, I'd say he's totally responsible for those epic failures. Again, stop trying to misdirect the conversation by pointing to other team's handling of our former picks. That lame tactic only works with Trump supporters.

The entire Clippers scouting department was replaced in September of 2016; yes, he probably should have moved quicker. Yes, Brice Johnson is on his head, Diamond was trade fodder, and I do suspect that Michineau, taken with the extra pick he dealt that turned into Chieck Diallo will be a bust. Since Diallo was redundant at PF after Doc picked Brice, it's more a question of either/or, and a fair question.

Even though we finally started investing in more resources into the draft process, let's not forget that Doc and his cronies still populate the front office, which means they still have significant influence in how prospects are evaluated, developed, and who are actually picked. Doc has final say, after all, as he likes to still remind us whenever presented the opportunity.

Stone was not drafted with the intention of being used in a future deal since the trade happened a year after he was drafted. I even signed off on picking him back then at that particular draft slot despite protesting the trade down in order to do so. Again,
you narrowly focus too much on the results when you should be also concerned with the approach to drafting. You'd know this if you read the previous post I've cited for you.

Unlike Stone, Cheick Diallo was selected for the expressed purpose of trading down for David Michineau and Stone, so again, stop giving Doc credit for other team's failures. There were so many things wrong with his handling of that selection alone, which I've also already gone over in the aforementioned post I've cited, that I'll just touch on a few. Why trade down? Why pass on McCaw? Why not buy the pick used to draft McCaw like Golden State did instead of trading down?

Focusing on who was actually selected continues to miss the point of the draft. Like I said before, an unused draft pick represents possibilities, which in itself has inherent value. It is worth more in capable hands than it is in foolish ones, which unironically is why Doc and his apologist use that lame excuse for devaluing and otherwise wasting draft picks. It bears repeating since you don't seem to get such a rudimentary concept that I'll try this analogy: if a personal shopper is buying the wrong items and/or paying for them at an unreasonably expensive premium, you fire that employee instead of burning the money that he/she shops with. Draft picks are indeed currency whether as trade assets or to possibilities for a star player. Teams value them as such.

But the main point is that Memphis already turned the much-mourned Jeff Green 1st-round pick into a couple of 2nd-rounders, marginally better than the ones we picked up for cash, and the FRP used to dump Dudley was turned by the Bucks into a player who ended up getting waived by the Nets!

Again, how does what Memphis and Milwaukee do with our former assets after they are no longer under our control become relevant or excuse Doc's ineptitude? If I paid $100 to buy a used video game console, what does it matter whether the seller uses that money to purchase Apple stock or waste it on fidget spinners? How does that change or otherwise affect my decision to purchase the video game console?

I get what you're trying to do in attempting to equate other teams' failures to excuse Doc, but it only reaffirms that he belongs in the company of idiots. As has been pointed out by not only me but others as well, Golden State and San Antonio consistently value and make the most of draft picks. While you're trying to cozy up to the Bucks and Grizzlies, the rest of us are trying to catch up to the Spurs and Warriors.

And yes, I'm familiar with that chart. I don't think it proved Doc is a moron. We missed out on Kyle Anderson, true, but I think it's not a fatal error.

If you can't see the facts before you, then I have no hope or really the desire to cure you of your myopia. Why are you selectively limiting your scope to Kyle Anderson? If it hasn't been clear already, Doc has missed on all of his draft selections. End of story.

Now, now. If you want to debate, then address my points and don't use pejoratives like "myopia." And thanks, Tucson Clip, but I don't think you won the debate at the other board and it was not cool to poison the well on me here.

The debate topic would be: Doc's trading of our FRPs didn't amount to much of a loss after all [plus they were lottery-protected], and our 2nd rounders replaced by better ones we bought with cash, which strategically speaking, is trash.

I think I just punked the Spurs drafting legend. Nothing much since 2010, and although he might turn out fine, as a sophomore Dejounte was just shooting 18% in the Summer League.

Update your software, brother. You were at least honest your chart was 20 years old.

[esqtvd]

That lame tactic only works with Trump supporters.

Oh, and dude? That s*** has been officialy banned by RealGM, and for good reason.

[Neddy]

Post Removed

[Ranma]

Now, now. If you want to debate, then address my points and don't use pejoratives like "myopia." And thanks, Tucson Clip, but I don't think you won the debate at the other board and it was not cool to poison the well on me here.

The debate topic would be: Doc's trading of our FRPs didn't amount to much of a loss after all [plus they were lottery-protected], and our 2nd rounders replaced by better ones we bought with cash, which strategically speaking, is trash.

I think I just punked the Spurs drafting legend. Nothing much since 2010, and although he might turn out fine, as a sophomore Dejounte was just shooting 18% in the Summer League.

Update your software, brother. You were at least honest your chart was 20 years old.

It's not a debate when you haven't addressed the numerous points I've made to refute your arguments. If you want to live in your own little world, that's fine by me. I've done the courtesy of spending time and effort to address your points while you've done little to recognize or acknowledge any of the points I've made. I call 'em like I see 'em. If you recall my time on the Scout forum, you should be well aware that I believe in holding people accountable for their posts and would not hesitate to call them out on it. Unfortunately, you've presented me with the same situation. If you can't recognize how valuable the draft is as a resource despite everything that I've cited or that Doc has been totally incompetent and criminally negligent with his approach to it, which by the way, is something practically everyone in basketball recognizes, then "myopia" is indeed the proper term for you. If you disagree, why don't you find me three reputable basketball minds that think otherwise. Since you have yet to respond to any of my points specifically, I doubt you'll actually follow through with this particular request.

What in the Sam Hill are you talking about? The 2 second-rounders were coincidentally enough purchased as soon as Jerry West joined the organization. Again, if you recall what I noted, the last time Doc tried to buy back into the second-round was in 2015,
which was 5 picks away from the end of the draft. However, in this instance, you are correct in that he did improve the draft position of that selection slot by 2 spots, but at that point it is too little and too late where you might as well just have signed only undrafted free agents. Whoopdie dee freaking doo. Doc made an effort that amounted to practically nothing. Let's give him a gold star.

You mean to tell me with a straight face that the 2017 23rd overall pick packaged in a trade to erase Doc's ill-advised trading and handling of Jared Dudley doesn't amount to much? You know what would help? A role player that Doc has had trouble filling our roster with for the past 4 years. If we had used the pick, we would have had a 70% chance of finding one at that selection slot.
I can name 2 promising prospects that were available: Jordan Bell and O.G. Anunoby. Even if I'm wrong on those 2, there are 36 other prospects that could possibly fill that role given the odds. At the very least, we could have traded that pick for a player as, believe it or not, first-round picks are always in demand nowadays. Throwing away a pick for absolutely nothing doesn't count as a win no matter how much you want to put the blinders on.

I can't believe that you continue to be so dense as to not value a pick that is lottery-protected where you would immediately declare a future first-round pick owed to the Celtics as having no value. You do know that there have been star players drafted outside of the lottery, right? Again, even in the likelihood that we would've only gotten just a role player, that is better than 3 lousy months of Jeff Green.

It's laughably tragic to witness that you think that you are somehow smarter than the Spurs. Lest you forget, they are still benefiting from Kawhi Leonard's excellence. I think that affords them some slack, especially since they usually draft towards the end of the first round, year after year. There is something to be said for development, after all, but I know that is difficult to relate to for a Doc apologist. Oh, by the way, you continue to conveniently not address the Warriors, but of course, why would you since it doesn't fit your particularly narrow narrative, which still doesn't hold water?

Again, I'd find it humorous if it wasn't so troubling, that you're telling me to "update my software" when you're the one behind the times with your antiquated thinking.

That lame tactic only works with Trump supporters.

Oh, and dude? That s*** has been officialy banned by RealGM, and for good reason.

Like I said, I call them like I see them and I'm not going to refrain from calling people out for their BS, especially when they don't reciprocate the courtesy of addressing individual points that were brought up in a supposed discussion rather than continue on with nonsensical rants.

Having shared time with me on the Scout forum before, you should know better than to expect any different from me. If you don't like it, let me know and I will gladly put you on ignore while noting that action in my signature. You are, of course, welcome to do the same. I'm not interested in wasting my time and efforts.

[esqtvd]

Post removed

[QRich3]

This place has become so toxic everytime I come here I have to leave quickly with a cringing face. Half of you treat anything Doc related like a soccer mom does her most hated Bachelor contestant. The other half barely posts anymore.

Not gonna get dragged into yet another long debate about draft picks where everyone's gonna dress their preconceived notion with big walls of text, but the false binary of draft picks = good and trading draft picks = bad is so simplistic it doesn't even merit a serious counterpoint. Things are way more nuanced than that, and smart teams have been making profit of the overvaluing of this sort of stuff for ages.

[Ranma]

First off, I'm not a moderator here. Second, I'll take the hit on this one, so go ahead and report me. Neddy was coming to my defense possibly because he remembered how I had to leave Scout because of rigid, narrow-minded posters
Omitted. And third, since you haven't shown any inclination to engage in a debate in good faith and have resorted to claiming false outrage over something so trivial, I will no longer engage with you in any discussion. Consider yourself ignored.

[Froob]

I've been wanting to get rid of Jamal for awhile. I know it's not official yet. I don't mind giving Gallinari a try. I was hoping that we wouldn't trade a 1st round pick this offseason though.

Is he any good still or do you guys just mostly hate him?

[nickhx2]

not good