What would be your top priority if you were in charge?

LACtdom · Post #1 » by **LACtdom** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:26 am

Hey everyone,
I think everyone agrees that we aren't quite perfect yet.

mttwlsn16 · Post #2 » by **mttwlsn16** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:48 am

Get Jeff Green. Although I have no idea how good he is defensively. Also find a replacement for Farmars crying ass

Neddy · Post #3 » by **Neddy** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 4:53 am

i voted for "other"

regardless of positions we need defensive aces, starters or bench.

I will take them in forms of starting SF, a backup guard, playing behind Blake, whatever. we don't have defense, period.

Ranma · Post #4 » by **Ranma** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:17 am

I voted for "Trade for a small forward, possibly making our bench worse" in the hopes of swapping Jamal Crawford for a legit SF. It'd be nice to have the luxury of Crawford but I also see him as a crutch that serves as a detriment to the team. Doc just lets JC have free rein with the second unit, which has everyone deferring to him without really running an offense it seems.

Plus, it doesn't incentivize Doc to develop role players to contribute. He doesn't develop young players like Bullock and Wilcox by giving them chances and he squanders draft picks like no one else this side of David Kahn. Not only is he apt to throw them away in salary dumps but he also doesn't draft rookies with a purpose despite plenty of quality prospects available in the mid-to-late first round in recent draft classes.

Look at the Spurs. After hitting a homerun with 15th overall pick Kawhi Leonard, they still got Kyle Anderson in the second round in the latest draft class who has recently started contributing with a few notable performances in recent games for them.

Kind of like Billy Beane in the Moneyball movie trading "All Star" Carlos Pena to open up a spot for the more sabermetrically effective Scott Hatteberg and forcing clubhouse manager Art Howe's hand. While the movie took creative license with the real-life events, the analogy stands...except that Doc ain't no Billy Beane and is more like Howe with the job title of both manager and GM.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAnh_ZLGrcE[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdCNcN-NFXA[/youtube]

Post #5 » by **mkwest** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:19 am

I think we need defense and length at the wing positions. It can be a 2/3 or 3/4. Versatility would be key.

"Possibly" making the bench worse in exchange for help at the 3 is not even a concern imo. Taking a page from Kobe, I have to say that those M*****F***ers ain't doing s*** for us.

Post #6 » by **og15** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 6:23 am

I think option #1 and #3 are basically the same. Some offense needs to be traded for defense if possible, and that could correlate with trading for a SF and having the bench be worse.

Of course Doc can just stagger lineups so it isn't all bench and that can help to alleviate issues. Also I concur with what was said about Jamal in a way being "too good" of an individual player for this bench group. Seems like most bench guys are down in pts/minute, and these guys aren't great, but they shouldn't be that way. If you look at their per 36 FGA and scoring change for their previous team to now

I remember last season there were similar complaints about Jamal and Collison not fitting so well because they didn't play cohesively, but just sort of took turns, but they seemed to figure it out later. Collison struggled for about the first 14 games, but injuries to Redick and then to Paul got him more minutes and minutes with the starters that kind of changed things.

Wammy Giveaway · Post #7 » by **Wammy Giveaway** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:13 am

I'm the only one who voted for "Trade for a SF at the expense of DeAndre Jordan." I'll get a lot of hate, but I'm the only one who is seeing the big picture. The Clippers Big 3 is a question mark. Paul and Griffin are superstars, but can Jordan become one, or did Doc give him the title so he wouldn't feel left out? It was Griffin who wanted to keep DJ around because he is his friend. Doc needs to realize there is no such thing as friends in sports, only enemies. And the Clippers need to trade him soon or else the friendship could corrupt their playoff chances and possibly alter Chris Paul's reputation.

Do the Clippers want to be known as a feel-good human interest team or a championship team that can put a scare into their arch nemesis.

"We're coming for you, Lakers!!!" - That's what I want to see.

If the Clippers are going to bold, unyielding and relentless, they need to live up to their slogan.

Roscoe Sheed · Post #8 » by **Roscoe Sheed** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 7:18 am

Wammy Giveaway wrote:I'm the only one who voted for "Trade for a SF at the expense of DeAndre Jordan." I'll get a lot of hate, but I'm the only one who is seeing the big picture. The Clippers Big 3 is a question mark. Paul and Griffin are superstars, but can Jordan become one, or did Doc give him the title so he wouldn't feel left out? It was Griffin who wanted to keep DJ around because he is his friend. Doc needs to realize there is no such thing as friends in sports, only enemies. And the Clippers need to trade him soon or else the friendship could corrupt their playoff chances and possibly alter Chris Paul's reputation.

Do the Clippers want to be known as a feel-good human interest team or a championship team that can put a scare into their arch nemesis.

"We're coming for you, Lakers!!!" - That's what I want to see.

If the Clippers are going to bold, unyielding and relentless, they need to live up to their slogan.

Unless the Clippers somehow also got back a serviceable center in a trade for a small forward, I think it would be like the old saying "robbing Peter to pay Paul". It would just lead to a weakness at a different position. DJ is the only big on the team that plays consistent defense (not top notch- but still pretty good) and rebounds. I'm not his biggest fan, but he plays a significant role.

Perhaps the best option is to stand pat and hope for the best. I think they would have to give up too much to get a real impact player at the 3. Perhaps they should see if Kirelenko is interested in playing and see if he has anything to contribute. He will never lose that wingspan, that's for sure.

LACtdom · Post #9 » by **LACtdom** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:08 am

I think we need to choose either JJ or Jamal to start and trade the other one in return for defense/athleticism/length. As said above, Jamal's playing style reduces other bench player's stats and in some cases (Farmar), causes unhappiness which as we've learnt from Barnes' early season slump, can cause a player to become useless.

I'm a strong believer in staggering CP/Blake minutes so we always have a go to guy. Also I think that if possible we should play Barnes with the bench unit to provide more grit.

mike3 · Post #10 » by **mike3** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 11:24 am

Our bench needs a PLAYMAKING first PG, I wouldn't even care if he couldn't shoot. Our bench would be a lot better if someone created for others, penetration etc.

Jamal kills our offence unless he hits contested shots.

I don't want to see Jamal go, only cause I love what he's given us and him as a player and person.

Post #11 » by **QRich3** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 12:15 pm

Pick up the phone and offer Jamal to all 29 teams. The one who gives the best wing defender gets him, even if it's just Andre Robertson or DeMarre Carroll or something minor like that. It's addition by subtraction at this point.

mattd13 · Post #12 » by **mattd13** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 2:46 pm

I have to agree with sheed. maybe the best option is to stand pat. I just do not see a deal that would be a game changer. jamal is not perfect but he is better than most. the clips are not trading jj.

Roscoe Sheed · Post #13 » by **Roscoe Sheed** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 5:59 pm

mike3 wrote:Our bench needs a PLAYMAKING first PG, I wouldn't even care if he couldn't shoot. Our bench would be a lot better if someone created for others, penetration etc.

Jamal kills our offence unless he hits contested shots.

I don't want to see Jamal go, only cause I love what he's given us and him as a player and person.

I think Jamal does what he is told- Doc tells him to score so that's what he tries to do to fulfill his role. He is also capable of being a distributor. I think Doc should emphasize to him that he needs to get more people involved on offense and I trust that he would do it if asked. In fact, when he has been forced into point guard duties I've been happier with his play

mattd13 · Post #14 » by **mattd13** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 9:39 pm

I would rather keep jamal. he has and can win games. I also think he is doing what he is told. the clips need a defensive 3 who can rebound. I just don't see someone who can replace matt that can be had. I like matt also and hope we stand pat. the guys seem to like each other and I hate to break that up. they will get better. just hope they stay healthy.

50CALguns · Post #15 » by **50CALguns** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:34 pm

Feed the beast, for starters...

Neddy · Post #16 » by **Neddy** » Sun Dec 21, 2014 10:59 pm

just a thought.

if we were to trade jamal and Farmar, our line up would be

CP3-JJ-Barnes-Blake-DJ which is unchanged.

Cunningham-Bullock-CDR-Baby-Hawes which is not much of a difference other than playing team ball and relying more on Hawes than JC

Wilcox, Turk, and Udoh are still available for depth.

so, if Jamal and Farmar can result in a difference maker anywhere else, this team can be much better than as is for sure.

LACtdom · Post #17 » by **LACtdom** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 12:08 am

Neddy wrote:just a thought.

if we were to trade jamal and Farmar, our line up would be

CP3-JJ-Barnes-Blake-DJ which is unchanged.

Cunningham-Bullock-CDR-Baby-Hawes which is not much of a difference other than playing team ball and relying more on Hawes than JC

Wilcox, Turk, and Udoh are still available for depth.

so, if Jamal and Farmar can result in a difference maker anywhere else, this team can be much better than as is for sure.

Quake Griffin · Post #18 » by **Quake Griffin** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:39 am

Crawford, Barnes and a 2nd for DeMarre Carroll and Thabo Sefalosha.

pageC4 · Post #19 » by **pageC4** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:51 am

Neddy wrote:just a thought.

if we were to trade jamal and Farmar, our line up would be

CP3-JJ-Barnes-Blake-DJ which is unchanged.

Cunningham-Bullock-CDR-Baby-Hawes which is not much of a difference other than playing team ball and relying more on Hawes than JC

Wilcox, Turk, and Udoh are still available for depth.

so, if Jamal and Farmar can result in a difference maker anywhere else, this team can be much better than as is for sure.

Hey Neddy, love your signature "In Friedman we trust." How do you like all the Dodgers off season moves?

Quake Griffin · Post #20 » by **Quake Griffin** » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:58 am

pageC4 wrote:
Neddy wrote:just a thought.

if we were to trade jamal and Farmar, our line up would be

CP3-JJ-Barnes-Blake-DJ which is unchanged.

Cunningham-Bullock-CDR-Baby-Hawes which is not much of a difference other than playing team ball and relying more on Hawes than JC

Wilcox, Turk, and Udoh are still available for depth.

so, if Jamal and Farmar can result in a difference maker anywhere else, this team can be much better than as is for sure.

Hey Neddy, love your signature "In Friedman we trust." How do you like all the Dodgers off season moves?

we're happy.

stop by the Dodger forum.