TheNewEra wrote:Still confused why we offered Patterson and Jackson contracts
Roscoe Sheed wrote:TheNewEra wrote:Still confused why we offered Patterson and Jackson contracts
Not a lot of other options and at least they didn’t pay them much. Both have a vital nba skill- shooting. I think Jackson is about as useful as Lou Williams actually. They are also apparently friends with PG
TheNewEra wrote:Roscoe Sheed wrote:TheNewEra wrote:Still confused why we offered Patterson and Jackson contracts
Not a lot of other options and at least they didn’t pay them much. Both have a vital nba skill- shooting. I think Jackson is about as useful as Lou Williams actually. They are also apparently friends with PG
We could of used another multi purpose wing with the Jackson minimum money. Patterson at 3 mil just seems wasteful when we could of used some of that cap for a playmaker of better defender at guard
Are We Having Fun Yet? 
Are We Having Fun Yet? 
TrueLAfan wrote:4 years/$64 Million. $56 million guaranteed; $8 million in “reachable” incentives.
Wow.
There’s two things going on here. Main one is health—as in, “Is Luke healthy?” and “Can he play 2000+ minutes in a season, for multiple seasons?” You have to think the Clips did the medical check. If Luke can play 29 mpg for 70 games, it’s probably a good deal. Thing is, Luke’s production Per/36 has improved … but not a whole lot. That’s good and bad. It means his ceiling isn’t much higher. But it also means his floor started out high and has stayed there. Essentially, he’s a 16-4-4 guy per 36 that’s also an adequate defender. If we get 13-3.5-3 a game from him, and he fills multiple roles, it’s a good deal. It’s all about the minutes.
Are We Having Fun Yet?esqtvd wrote:TrueLAfan wrote:4 years/$64 Million. $56 million guaranteed; $8 million in “reachable” incentives.
Wow.
There’s two things going on here. Main one is health—as in, “Is Luke healthy?” and “Can he play 2000+ minutes in a season, for multiple seasons?” You have to think the Clips did the medical check. If Luke can play 29 mpg for 70 games, it’s probably a good deal. Thing is, Luke’s production Per/36 has improved … but not a whole lot. That’s good and bad. It means his ceiling isn’t much higher. But it also means his floor started out high and has stayed there. Essentially, he’s a 16-4-4 guy per 36 that’s also an adequate defender. If we get 13-3.5-3 a game from him, and he fills multiple roles, it’s a good deal. It’s all about the minutes.
There was a guy we signed a few years back for 3yr/$35M. As a Clipper his per-36 minutes numbers were 15.3-2.9-3.5.
TrueLAfan wrote:esqtvd wrote:TrueLAfan wrote:4 years/$64 Million. $56 million guaranteed; $8 million in “reachable” incentives.
Wow.
There’s two things going on here. Main one is health—as in, “Is Luke healthy?” and “Can he play 2000+ minutes in a season, for multiple seasons?” You have to think the Clips did the medical check. If Luke can play 29 mpg for 70 games, it’s probably a good deal. Thing is, Luke’s production Per/36 has improved … but not a whole lot. That’s good and bad. It means his ceiling isn’t much higher. But it also means his floor started out high and has stayed there. Essentially, he’s a 16-4-4 guy per 36 that’s also an adequate defender. If we get 13-3.5-3 a game from him, and he fills multiple roles, it’s a good deal. It’s all about the minutes.
There was a guy we signed a few years back for 3yr/$35M. As a Clipper his per-36 minutes numbers were 15.3-2.9-3.5.
True. But that guy was a poor free throw shooter and didn’t draw fouls; his TS% of .532 with Clippers was well under the league average. I also personally felt his D, which (somehow) got a good rep was overrated (and I think the opposite of Kennard). Anyway, the other guy had lousy on-offs with good teams, while Kennard’s were/are good with mediocre to poor teams. I think Luke is a markedly better player, although the other guy did have at least one fan among the coaching staff.
Okay, seriously—I was never an Austin hater. He was somewhat overpaid, but he was/is a decent 9th/10th man … he’s a 15-20 mpg guy, a mid to low rotation guy on a good team. Others disagree, I know. I have Kennard as more of a borderline starter. He’s simply more valuable on the court. But this comes back to the big issue; health. Luke’s gotta play 2000 minutes a year for me to be happy. No matter how you slice it, I think the starting SG/backup SG/SF rotation of Batum/Kennard is light years better than Sham/McGruder. We’re talking so much better it isn’t funny.
I also get a sense of “player types” here. Like I said, I approve of the type of player Luke Kennard is—moves super well off of screen, creates his own shot, is plenty good at catch and shoot, smart enough passer to run an offense in spurts, decent positional defender. Just a smart player. Batum is really the same sort of guy; he got saddled with unrealistic expectation because of his last contract. But Batum is another smart player; in control, capable at multiple positions, works very well without the ball, does lots of things well. Swiss army knife player; also a glue guy. Really, Batum is more of Shane Battier-type player. Those types of guys are just flat out useful, and top level teams find ways of using their (multiple) strength sets. I’m hoping that’s the case here.
. And I certainly hope he IS better than Austin for what we're paying and for what we gave up. But you must admit it's ironic that Austin's numbers pretty much met your expectations for Kennard, and he often played out of position because of injuries to CP3 or to our SFs. Are We Having Fun Yet? TrueLAfan wrote:Well, no. Austin’s numbers on the surface are similar. They’re also pretty much lower across the board—and that adds up. Luke is a (much) better shooter. He goes to the line more. He scores more. He rebounds about 40% better. He doesn’t turn the ball over as much. Those things add up; Luke’s Win Shares per 48 are about 40% higher than Austin’s. His BPM and PER are better; his VORP is (much) better. Like I said, I wasn’t an Austin hater; he is/was what he was. He was somewhat overpaid; he was a 9th or 10th man talent paid like a higher rotation player. (Austin was also a much more marginal NBA player when he signed that deal.) Luke is a borderline starter and is being paid as such; like I said (again) … it’s all about his health. If Luke plays as many minutes as Austin did, I think he’ll be a pretty good deal. (If he plays 10% more, he’ll be a good deal, period.)
Again, what I’m liking is the player type. Nic Batum was a) overpaid in his extension, and then b) gradually cut out of his team’s plans. Being overpaid once doesn't change the way he approaches and plays the game; he’s a versatile player that does lots of things at a good level. He may do that a slightly lower level now, but those types of players tend to have and hold value. I’m thinking of players like Shane Battier and James Posey and Boris Diaw and Rick Fox (to a slightly lesser extent). Batum is another player who has overall skills and intelligence that should be able to use them to great effect on a team filled with stars and higher profile players.
TrueLAfan wrote: it’s all about his health. If Luke plays as many minutes as Austin did, I think he’ll be a pretty good deal. (If he plays 10% more, he’ll be a good deal, period.)
TrueLAfan wrote:But this comes back to the big issue; health. Luke’s gotta play 2000 minutes a year for me to be happy.
Are We Having Fun Yet? 
og15 wrote:Why insert Austin into the discussion? You know exactly what you are bringing upon yourself and into the thread by unnecessarily trying to sneak Austin into the discussion. You have been warned.
I basically agree with TrueLAFan. I told you guys when he was added that I like Kennard. He’s one of those guys who both produces well and can give you value beyond his production. He’s simply an all round smart player. Defense is the weak area, though he’s been credited as being one of those guys that is able to be in the right spots on defense. If he can do that and stay in front of guys well enough, he can be a neutral defender for a team.
My only hope is that the team has done very good evaluation of his health and that he’s someone that can play at least 80-85% of the season, so 66-70 games, better to be in the 70+ range.
His per 36 over his first three seasons:
14/4/3
15/5/3
17/4/5 (limited games)
His TS% went from 56% in year one and two to 58.9% in year 3, but again, limited games that last season, and his 3PA/minute also gradually went up. His ability to play off ball, both as a catch and shoot and a mobile guy and play on the ball as a pick and roll ball handler and playmaker gives him utility with different players and lineups.
If the Clippers can get a good amount of games and solid production from him and Batum, I think many people will be happy. Now what his contract does change is the Clippers versatility in making any large FA signing in 2022 if Kawhi was to leave, but it’s not a large enough contract that you can’t move it.
Are We Having Fun Yet? 
Return to Los Angeles Clippers
