esqtvd wrote:og15 wrote:esqtvd wrote:There's plenty of "need" when new info presents itself. Green is the 6th man on a conference champion, eating up minutes without much damage. That's all the Clips needed from him. And what else is going on here on this board? LOL
The deal looks even better [or at least not as bad] when we see that not only was the pick lottery-protected, but if we fell into the lottery 2 straight years [probably meaning we lost CP and/or Blake and were rebuilding], the pick becomes a crummy little 2nd rounder.
And no confusion here, as you keep insisting--Jeff Green got 25 mpg at SF. Green didn't play that bad for us and the experiment was never completed because CP and Blake got injured and the playoff run collapsed. You want to make the case that we shouldn't have risked a lousy 2nd-rounder and instead played Jamal, Austin, WeJo or knucklehead Stephenson for those minutes, then argue your case affirmatively. I'd rather take this side. It was worth a shot and will probably end up costing us little.
Fine, make me waste my time on this, lucky its a slow day in the office so I have some intermittent time to waste.
Jeff Green played 27 games with the Clippers. He started 10 games. When he started, he took Pierce's spot, Pierce was the PF in the starting lineup. The starting lineup with Green was Paul/Redick/Mbah/Green/Jordan. Luc got injured though, so Green started at SF for a couple of games, but then WeJo started some of those games without Luc as Pierce was removed from the lineup, so he was back to PF. He played 95 minutes with Luc where he was PF and 71 minutes with Pierce where he was SF. Like mentioned, Pierce was also out of the lineup for a couple of games, can't remember why. WeJo started at SF and Green at PF, that was 46 minutes, Paul/Redick/WeJo/Green/Jordan.
His next most common lineup was Rivers/Crawford/Johnson/Green/Aldrich, 56 minutes, he was the PF because he's bigger than WeJo.
Next was Prigioni/Rivers/Crawford/Green/Aldrich, 42 mins, he was the PF.
Next was Paul/Redick/Crawford/Green/Jordan, 42 mins, he was the PF
Next was Paul/Crawford/Johnson/Green/Jordan, 39 mins, he was the PF.
See a pattern yet? Position estimate from basketball reference had him playing 77% of his minutes with the Clippers at PF.
OK. He ended up playing PF when Griffin got hurt. But he was brought in to play SF. We also got rid of knucklehead Lance. Even if Jeff Green were out of the league right now, I'd say taking that longshot was better than doing nothing. The lottery protections were even better than I knew at the time--if the FRP doesn't convey in the first 2 years, it becomes a lousy 2nd-rounder. Big deal.
You clearly disagree. I don't want to upset you any further, so let's just leave it here.
I'm not mad, the last thing that will get me mad is a forum.
Remember we went through knuckle head Lance, Doc went out of his way to say he wasn't a knuckle head while he was a Clipper, just like Doc went out of his way to say Ingles was a very good player even while his stats sucked and said he wanted to keep him even before he did anything on Utah. I do find it interesting though that in trying to defend Doc and his moves at all costs, for whatever reason, playing devil's advocate to the Doc haters, or really just liking the guy, even when it isn't the topic at hand, you end up making statements contrary to what Doc has said himself. Here's my issue there, if Doc says something you agree with, you have wanted others to take his word at face value and not assume he means something else or that he's lying, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't do that while also wanting to gloss over, ignore, or even suggest that statements he's made contrary to what you might say or believe are essentially to be taken with a grain of salt.
If Doc is supposed to be reliable, then Ingles was an NBAer according to him, you say he wasn't, Doc or you? Lance wasn't a knucklehead according to Doc, you say he was? You're either right, or Doc is right, or Doc is lying. Jeff Green was a signing that didn't actually move the needle or put the Clippers above anyone else, at least you came around on that after the initial "he's a playoff performer" which is what triggered this, trying to prop him up as the type of player that brings out for fans in the playoffs based on 5 bad games and 2 good games in a series while the team was being carried by LeBron.
Here's more real time in Jeff Green trade:
https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2016/2/19/11059992/jeff-green-trade-la-clippers-doc-riversYou can't look at trades in a box, you have to also examine them from a larger lens. It's not about whether the pick is anything special, but we must also examine the question of what else could the pick have gotten. The protected pick traded isn't a bad thing to do, but NBA teams love the idea of picks more than the actual players they get. That pick was one of the Clippers last trade assets at the time, it had to be used wisely. Like I said, everyone gets the trade, Green is theoretically a useful player. He ideally could plug some holes, and Doc has many times felt he can coach up guys, and Green had played very well for him in the past, just had to bring that out again. My issue is that you need to allow for people to not agree without acting like it's not an acceptable position and acting like this was a move that HAD to be done. It's fine if you thought the move was good, you are entitled to that, but you have to be willing to at least see that other reasonable people can come to a different conclusion and felt it was not an imminent move to be made and the asset should have been saved for use some other way.
