JOSH SMITH to Clippers

[No-Man]

The Clippers just need to trade Jamal for a capable starting 3 and they will be loaded, too bad no one wants Crawford.
The only team I can see more or less interested is Washington, Jamal for Webster.
Webster is in his last year too, and the money matches, it is true that Martell is really injury prone, but he is in a contract year and he is a perfect fit for what the team needs.

Paul-Rivers
Redick-Stephenson
Johnson-Webster
Griffin-Pierce
Jordan-Smith

The 2nd unit is going to feature Pierce as smallball PF and Smith or Blake as the C, most likely, add Aldrich if you need another big, Wilcox if there is any injury, and a 3rd PG, could be Nate, could be Ish Smith.

[nickhx2]

Oh I get it. I'm just not being irrational about it like some of you. Trading away Jamal just for the sake of it is a bad idea. Trading away CJ just to get a team to take Jamal is a terrible idea.

let's be defined here. your value of him is the inverse of how most other people value him. i'd say the majority of people think he has negative value. a dallas fan just came in here to essentially say he has negative value. when posed with the idea of a crawford package for haywood, several cleveland fans retched at the idea of taking him back.

so if most people think he has negative value to the team then offloading him is the only rational thing to do. if you want to be even more rational, simply look at the roster, the fit, the minutes still available, and it becomes clear that he should be moved. regardless of my own personal feelings, it doesn't matter if we trade him for the sake of it: it still benefits the team because we have playtime distribution issues with him still here. there is no room for him to do anything and since he doesn't do anything of worth on the court then getting literally anything back adds value to our roster.

also not sure where you saw that people want to trade wilcox just to offload jamal in a straight dump. even i wouldn't do that. og was saying they can fetch picks. that is a wonderful idea if we don't plan on playing either and we can't get anything else of worth on the way back.

[TheNewEra]

Should be the best year of big three era.

[playaloc916]

I recall quite a few games where was playing significant minutes with the starters... CP3, BG, etc... And again, he just looks to shoot first. Bricked 3 after bricked 3. What got on my nerves was that every once in awhile he'll have a game where he goes off, but then have a bunch of 25-30% fg games after that. Or he stinks it up all game, and then gets one of his 4 point plays at a critical moment and then it seems like all is forgiven.

I've seen what he is capable of as a playmaker and passer. But unfortunately he plays that role too little for it to add any longstanding impact. I agree that Doc is just not able to reign him in. I wouldn't mind if we kept him and gave him a much more limited role. But Doc is incapable of doing that. He just lets him do whatever he wants out there, and it seems more often than not, it hurts the team. I'd rather have him gone mainly because Doc refuses to use him correctly.

[Lindecision]

That's not what I'm saying at all. If there's a deal out there that makes sense, then by all means trade Jamal. Something like Taj Gibson or Markieff Morris. Not something like Marvin Williams.

If there isn't, then keep him. Something will come up closer to the trade deadline.

It isn't smart to trade Jamal without knowing which Lance shows up. He could be a disaster.

[nickhx2]

I recall quite a few games where was playing significant minutes with the starters... CP3, BG, etc... And again, he just looks to shoot first. Bricked 3 after bricked 3. What got on my nerves was that every once in awhile he'll have a game where he goes off, but then have a bunch of 25-30% fg games after that. Or he stinks it up all game, and then gets one of his 4 point plays at a critical moment and then it seems like all is forgiven.

I've seen what he is capable of as a playmaker and passer. But unfortunately he plays that role too little for it to add any longstanding impact. I agree that Doc is just not able to reign him in. I wouldn't mind if we kept him and gave him a much more limited role. But Doc is incapable of doing that. He just lets him do whatever he wants out there, and it seems more often than not, it hurts the team. I'd rather have him gone mainly because Doc refuses to use him correctly.

this is well said in all aspects.

i don't remember where i read it but someone said that jamal would probably be better for us now that he'd have more guys to take the pressure off him (lol).

like really? he gets major burn with blake and cp3 and he still does the same exact crap with them. playing with two superstars has never done anything to deter him from playing brainless basketball.

[nickhx2]

That's not what I'm saying at all. If there's a deal out there that makes sense, then by all means trade Jamal. Something like Taj Gibson or Markieff Morris. Not something like Marvin Williams.

If there isn't, then keep him. Something will come up closer to the trade deadline.

It isn't smart to trade Jamal without knowing which Lance shows up. He could be a disaster.

of course you trade him for what makes sense. but your valuation of him is FAR different from everyone else's. most people here would kill to trade jamal for marvin williams, a player who would be better than wes johnson and can play a great defensive role for this team. but you seem to think that's a bad trade. and of course you would trade jamal for taj gibson or markieff morris but those guys have dramatically higher value than crawford so it's hard to say that makes sense for anyone but us.

anyway, even if lance is terrible next year that doesn't mean we should go and replace him with crawford. he just plain sucks. if you're worried about your plan A falling through you go out and get an actual plan B, not a plan Q who would wreck the team even more than if things went to crap. if you're worried that lance is a risk then you actually need to protect against that risk with someone who is worthwhile. that player is not ever going to be jamal crawford.

[og15]

Yeh there is. PP will be minutes restricted. Josh will get his. Wes is a minimum guy that can't be relied upon. Jamal and Austin are gunners that have to be pulled if they're not hitting shots. And Lance might just flat out blow up in our faces.



I'm not. If there isn't a good trade to be had then there's no point.

Like I said, show me the minutes. I don't want you to tell me, show me how everyone gets what you'd consider adequate minutes when the roster is healthy if you keep Jamal. I don't see it, if you do, be my guest and show us.

I don't see the point of me coming up with a bunch of arbitrary numbers. Some games he'll play 5 minutes, some games he'll play 25 minutes. I don't know. If anything, you guys are more insistent of getting rid of Jamal than I am willing to keep him. Jamal isn't the type to cause locker room problems. Nothing wrong with keeping him for now to see if something comes up down the road. Less minutes might even make him more effiecient, which will up his trade value. We've already got our backup big without having to lose anything in return, so trading away our depth just for the sake of it is a terrible idea.

Where do Jamaal and Wilcox fit?

Jamal doesn't fit, and along with Wilcox they get moved for picks, any picks

Like so. Terrible idea. CJ will be worth more than any mediocre picks you get in return.

I was being facetious about the second rounds picks, but actually we have no clue what CJ is worth to teams and might not find out on this roster.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make here. I'm saying on average how many minutes will he get. There's 48 minutes at SG. He's getting zero minutes at PG when the team is healthy with Paul and Rivers there.

He's no longer going to play any SF because you have Pierce, Johnson and Smith who can also move the SF, and also Stephenson when he isn't at SG. At SG you already have Redick and Stephenson. Let's make a fake scenario where Redick plays 20 mins and Stephenson plays 20 mins, there's only 8 mins for Jamal.

There is no reasonable way to make everyone happy, and Jamal will be the odd man out on the roster, that's my point. Right now he's the 3rd PG, 3rd SG and 5th SF on the likely rotation.

[og15]

PERFECT and we keep craw (or trade him for more parts)

he can come of the bench so blake dont got to play 45+ in playoffs.
he also can sub in for dj when they go hacka dj end of games.

if blake works on his shot more he can shift to sf(for a big line)

also he can heat up just remember what he did to us.
he also not great defender but underrated. i do remember him going 1-1 vs blake and doing really good job defending him.



GOOOOO CLIPPERS!

Mmmmm....

[Quake Griffin]

Oh I get it. I'm just not being irrational about it like some of you. Trading away Jamal just for the sake of it is a bad idea. Trading away CJ just to get a team to take Jamal is a terrible idea.

I think they could yield a nice little return for us….something more than just getting rid of Jamal.

[madmaxmedia]

Well, somebody has to be the 12th man and get no regular minutes, whether it's Jamal or the guy we trade him for.

If we could get value for him then great, otherwise he'll sit near the end of the bench, maybe occasionally play more due to injury.

[Lindecision]

That's not what I'm saying at all. If there's a deal out there that makes sense, then by all means trade Jamal. Something like Taj Gibson or Markieff Morris. Not something like Marvin Williams.

If there isn't, then keep him. Something will come up closer to the trade deadline.

It isn't smart to trade Jamal without knowing which Lance shows up. He could be a disaster.

of course you trade him for what makes sense. but your valuation of him is FAR different from everyone else's. most people here would kill to trade jamal for marvin williams, a player who would be better than wes johnson and can play a great defensive role for this team. but you seem to think that's a bad trade. and of course you would trade jamal for taj gibson or markieff morris but those guys have dramatically higher value than crawford so it's hard to say that makes sense for anyone but us.

anyway, even if lance is terrible next year that doesn't mean we should go and replace him with crawford. he just plain sucks. if you're worried about your plan A falling through you go out and get an actual plan B, not a plan Q who would wreck the team even more than if things went to crap. if you're worried that lance is a risk then you actually need to protect against that risk with someone who is worthwhile. that player is not ever going to be jamal crawford.

You're not getting a someone worthwhile in return for Jamal. Why won't you listen? Its better to keep him and wait for an opportunity closer to the trade deadline. Jamal doesn't just plain suck. Out of personal dislike you're just trading him for the sake of trading him. Marvin Williams is terrible defensively. Now that guy really does suck. If we were interested he would've been in the Lance trade. I don't know where people got that idea. Wouldn't help this team at all.

[Lindecision]

You're missing the point I'm trying to make here. I'm saying on average how many minutes will he get. There's 48 minutes at SG. He's getting zero minutes at PG when the team is healthy with Paul and Rivers there.

He's no longer going to play any SF because you have Pierce, Johnson and Smith who can also move the SF, and also Stephenson when he isn't at SG. At SG you already have Redick and Stephenson. Let's make a fake scenario where Redick plays 20 mins and Stephenson plays 20 mins, there's only 8 mins for Jamal.

There is no reasonable way to make everyone happy, and Jamal will be the odd man out on the roster, that's my point. Right now he's the 3rd PG, 3rd SG and 5th SF on the likely rotation.

I knew what point you were trying to make. Sorry but I just don't think its all that relevant. I'm sure Jamal will be more happy getting 8 minutes a game on a playoff team like the Clippers than 35 minutes a game on a lottery team like the Sixers. (If he's hypothetically traded for Jason Thompson)

Minutes will open up one way or another. We know PP will have his minutes capped. Wes is an end of the bench guy anyway. I take your point about our newly acquired (feels weird to say) SF depth, but small ball will open up some minutes. JJ will have his bad shooting nights. We know Austin will fall off at some point. You never know with Lance. Injuries will happen. There will be blowouts. And guys will be need to be rested. Don't worry, if Jamal stays he will get his minutes.

[nickhx2]

i don't see the point in arguing this anymore. well, actually i find it really frigging interesting that someone out there is willing to go to such lengths to argue defend the mediocrity of such a player, so it's really the only reason i keep biting. anyway, you ask me why i'm not listening but to me it's clearly the other way around. let's start with the quote you bolded from me :

"if you're worried that lance is a risk then you actually need to protect against that risk with someone who is worthwhile."

but here you say "You're not getting a someone worthwhile in return for Jamal." well, duh, i've been arguing the whole time that he is negative value so obviously he's not gonna bring back anyone worthwhile. my entire point was that jamal crawford isn't even close to a smart fallback plan in case lance falls through. i'm not saying trade jamal for a fallback plan in case lance implodes, i'm saying if he IS your fallback plan for lance then you're pretty screwed and doc did a horrible job.

i'm curious why you contradict yourself here though because you go on to say it's better to keep him and wait for an opportunity closer to the deadline, even though you just said we can't get anyone worthwhile for him. which is it exactly?

listen, the difference between us is in the premise that you think he is a functional nba player. why that is exactly, i don't know. in the playoffs he shot under 40% from the field and 24% from the 3. hence why i say he sucks. cause when a player shoots like that, destroys your offense and destroys your defense at the same time without doing anything else meaningful like rebound or pass, it means he sucks. do our definitions differ or something here?

and you think i don't understand what you are saying. don't worry, i completely understand what you're saying at the core. you want to maximize the return on him. this i understand and this i agree with: you max out the return on an asset if you can or you're wasting it. but our differences lie in valuation of him. i'm astonished you think crawford for marvin williams is a bad trade when the latter can fill a slot we need as well as play defense for us. yet you seem to think that we should be trading him for taj gibson or markieff morris. er, well wait a sec, you just said we aren't getting anyone worthwhile for jamal. i suppose i don't really understand those lines of thought in conjunction with each other, but if you want to come up with trade scenarios where we rip off the other team i won't stop you.

you keep saying i want to trade him for the sake of trading him. well, yeah i want him gone because he's a blight on the court and doc has no idea how to control himself when it comes to playing crawford. even though you were the one who was saying one of us wanted to add in wilcox just to dump crawford (none of us did, to my knowledge), i'd like to think some of us are more reasonable than that. besides, i wouldn't advocate spending assets just to offload him when we could just simply waive him anyway. at the end of the day i want to get rid of him asap because i think he hurts our team. that's all there really is to it.

[Lindecision]

Again, you're not listening. I'm not defending Jamal. I'm saying wait and see what we have before you start trading him. What if Lance and Austin doesn't work, but Jamal and Lance works like a charm? We don't know how things are going to play out.

I never contradicted myself either. There won't be a trade worth making now, but there might be a trade that comes up down the road. Its a pretty simple concept. Things change. Opportunities arise. I have no idea why your responses have to be so long.

[nickhx2]

You're missing the point I'm trying to make here. I'm saying on average how many minutes will he get. There's 48 minutes at SG. He's getting zero minutes at PG when the team is healthy with Paul and Rivers there.

He's no longer going to play any SF because you have Pierce, Johnson and Smith who can also move the SF, and also Stephenson when he isn't at SG. At SG you already have Redick and Stephenson. Let's make a fake scenario where Redick plays 20 mins and Stephenson plays 20 mins, there's only 8 mins for Jamal.

There is no reasonable way to make everyone happy, and Jamal will be the odd man out on the roster, that's my point. Right now he's the 3rd PG, 3rd SG and 5th SF on the likely rotation.

I knew what point you were trying to make. Sorry but I just don't think its all that relevant. I'm sure Jamal will be more happy getting 8 minutes a game on a playoff team like the Clippers than 35 minutes a game on a lottery team like the Sixers. (If he's hypothetically traded for Jason Thompson)

Minutes will open up one way or another. We know PP will have his minutes capped. Wes is an end of the bench guy anyway. I take your point about our newly acquired (feels weird to say) SF depth, but small ball will open up some minutes. JJ will have his bad shooting nights. We know Austin will fall off at some point. You never know with Lance. Injuries will happen. There will be blowouts. And guys will be need to be rested. Don't worry, if Jamal stays he will get his minutes.

you're making quite the number of assumptions here. we've all seen crawford do his passive aggressive thing on twitter whenever his name comes up in trade talks. but you think he'd be happy getting 8 minutes a game? i won't say that he is a headcase or that he wants to be the man but i'd bet a lot of money being the team's new epke udoh would make him near riot.

sure, people get injured. sure there are blowouts. sure if you know for sure austin falls off, ok. that's what end of bench guys are for. but i'd much rather have cj wilcox be that guy than jamal crawford be that guy. cause whether he gets 25 minutes or 8 minutes or 1 minute, crawford is a net negative player on the court which is what this team does not need.

[Lindecision]

I have to go soon. But its been good to air out some of our thoughts.

[Ranma]

Sorry, Lindecision.

I don't really want to pile on but I agree with the sentiment that the priority is to move Jamal Crawford. While I generally share your position of maximizing return on trade assets, there are times when trading a player sooner at the expense of possibly squeezing full value would actually serve the team better.

Keep in mind that Crawford is on an expiring deal and quite unlikely to return beyond the 2015-16 season. He's publicly shown disdain in the past with not having his contract extended and newcomers threatening his role on the team. To his credit, he has yet to make it a big deal during the regular season. Another admirable point on his behalf is that I believe he actually asked Doc whether he should play a more structured game, however, Doc told him to be himself, which is the exact problem for us. On a certain level, I can understand why Doc would say that only because when Jamal has tried to play a different role for the Trailblazers, he was not effective in it likely due to motivational issues. It's just not who he is at heart even though he clearly has the skills to be a more effective all-around player and even the intelligence to recognize it.

If Crawford would primarily play the role of playmaking facilitator and spot-up shooter, the team would tremendously be better off. However, you and I know he will most likely revert to playing playground iso ball, which hurts the flow of the offense and takes the rest of his teammates out of the game. A big part of the reason why our bench was so ineffective is because it relied heavily on him to make things happen. He was like a hard drug a junkie took to calm the shakes even as it was killing him. He doesn't play defense and has always disappeared in the postseason.

When it came time for his bench teammates to step up in his place, they didn't know how because they were used to standing around and watching Jamal Ball. For all of Doc's talk about wanting to be like the Spurs, he doesn't live up to that when it concerns Jamal Crawford. The Clippers need to institute a system where everyone is involved so that we can avoid the horrific collapse we experienced against Houston when our star players are locked down or gassed and other players need to elevate their games.

The Clippers have been fortunate enough to fill out the roster with talented players. As it has been previously mentioned, playing time will be hard to come by. As I illustrated, the team would be better off in not playing Crawford at the expense of his teammates. Even getting C.J. Wilcox more experience to see what he can truly do would be a better option than going through more of Crawford's preferred style of play. I'm not even confident that Wilcox is worth keeping. Outside of Branden Dawson, Doc's draft selections haven't proven to be good investments. Wilcox, in particular, is an older prospect who needs to either up his trade value or show he can contribute to be worth a roster spot in the coming years and he can't do that while still sitting behind Crawford.

The team is now in a position not to rely so heavily on Jamal anymore and holding onto him while he doesn't play or continues to play badly will not help his trade value since his market value will likely be dependent on the situations of other teams than his actual play. Much like being named on the All Defensive First Team doesn't make DJ a good overall defender, Jamal Crawford being a 2-time 6th Man of the Year doesn't make him a good bench player.

His trade value is low because the current market demand warrants it, but what exactly should we expect to get in return for him even in improved conditions? Again, he's 35 years-old on an expiring contract who's shown to be a no-show in the playoffs. We'd be trying to sell him as a temporary boost to a team's bench scoring for the regular season. This doesn't provide much optimism for a big return. Plus, Jamal will be looking to exhibit his value on the free agent market, so he'd be even more inclined to show off his scoring skills with whatever playing time he gets. Basically, more garbage-time basketball.

I'm not saying that we dump him for the sake of dumping him, but I'm close to that at this point. As soon as we find something useful for him that doesn't hurt our future cap flexibility, I'd ship him out ASAP. Marvin Williams' expiring deal qualifies to me. I'd consider us fortunate to get draft picks for both Crawford and Wilcox at this point. Holding onto JC on the off-chance that he'll incrementally increase his trade value doesn't do anyone any good, including Jamal.

[Angel strike1]

PERFECT and we keep craw (or trade him for more parts)

he can come of the bench so blake dont got to play 45+ in playoffs.
he also can sub in for dj when they go hacka dj end of games.

if blake works on his shot more he can shift to sf(for a big line)

also he can heat up just remember what he did to us.
he also not great defender but underrated. i do remember him going 1-1 vs blake and doing really good job defending him.



GOOOOO CLIPPERS!

Mmmmm....

well rules wont change and dj prob wont start shooting 60% fts so ya

[Angel strike1]

simple we only trade jamal if we get something useful otherwise he still worth keeping. great dude and he always has 1-2 huge games the difference is with this team if he not on he wont play