RealGM

Posted: **Tue Dec 8, 2015 7:25 pm**

Jared Dudley, Danny Granger, Stephen Jackson, Antawn Jamison, Sasha Vujacic, Reggie Bullock, Chris Douglas-Roberts, Jordan Hamilton, Dahntay Jones, Hedo Turkoglu, Matt Barnes, Lance Stephenson

They are all shooting guards or small forwards or hybrids that Doc Rivers has trotted out ever since he took over as coach. They are also victims of representing the weakest position of the Clippers starting lineup, small forward. Doc had one priority: finding the right small forward who would gel perfectly with the quartet of Paul-Redick-Griffin-Jordan. But instead, Doc has been looking for a Paul Pierce replacement - somebody who could move, shoot and defend just like Pierce did in his Big 3 Celtics heyday.

Doc Rivers has failed on both priorities.

I am now starting to realize who Doc's targets have been all along:

1. Kevin Durant
2. Paul George
3. Carmelo Anthony
4. DeMar DeRozan
5. James Harden

Doc has come to the realization that nobody can ever emulate Paul Pierce. Even Pierce can no longer emulate himself as Father Time has tapped him on the shoulder to remind him it's that time. His last hope, the only way to defeat the Golden State Warriors once and for all, is to trade for a superstar. He doesn't care about the fit anymore, he cares about power. He cares about winning now, and with the latest report from Yahoo!'s Marc Spears involving Lance Stephenson and Josh Smith, he'll win at any cost. He might even care to break up the friendship between Blake Griffin and DeAndre Jordan just to get back at the Warriors. This has been going on ever since the Warriors got Griffin ejected on Christmas of 2013. He still wants revenge. But does he realize it is his fault from his very own words about luck that the Warriors are still perfect?

But it's more than just vengeance. Doc is trying to re-create the very moves that gave him his first championship. Doc saw Danny Ainge trade the farm - five players, cash, and a pick - for one superstar. Plagued by his own nostalgia, in a desperate attempt to repeat history, Doc believes that without a superstar blockbuster trade, the Clippers are stuck in the mud as 2nd round casualties. He wants to prove that he can be as good of a GM as Danny Ainge, maybe better.

Is Doc Rivers blinded by his own hubris? Has the wealthy contract rewarded for his guidance in the Donald Sterling scandal corrupted the coach who once preached about Ubuntu and togetherness? How would you solve the small forward problem?

Posted: **Tue Dec 8, 2015 9:10 pm**

I voted No. A superstar SF wouldn't help us simply because transferring the salary would either leave us with a bench who would get slaughtered because we farm traded or giving up a current star say CP3 and then we would complain because we would have a PG problem. However we do need a quality / star SF. It's nice to dream that we could have gotten a Nic Batum at an Iggy price but I feel as though we would have to overpay to get a star which is why I'm hesitant. I think an Ariza type player would do the job nicely but I'm not confident our coach could fill the void left behind if we traded one of our stars to acquire a $20m+ player.

Posted: **Tue Dec 8, 2015 9:20 pm**

doc doesn't even know what his first damn problem is. so he most assuredly doesn't have any answers.

Posted: **Tue Dec 8, 2015 11:15 pm**

Wammy Giveaway wrote:Is Doc Rivers blinded by his own hubris? Has the wealthy contract rewarded for his guidance in the Donald Sterling scandal corrupted the coach who once preached about Ubuntu and togetherness? How would you solve the small forward problem?

All will be answered, just tune in next time, on Dragon Ball Z!!

Seriously Wammy you create these posts that look more like a narrative or a story than anything, quite entertaining lol

No, the answer isn't a superstar, as LACtdom said, you want to keep your 4 main guys, and to get a superstar at the MINIMUM, you end up trading any semblance of the depth we have now on the bench. And even if we wanted to, who out of those 5 "superstars" that you said Doc was going after, would we be able to attain? Not even being realistic, but Derozan would be the only possible one and even that is a longshot, only if Masai Ujiri is getting something very valuable back, which would necessitate a 3rd team. Derozan doesn't even really solve the problem. He's a volume scorer, who needs the ball and is inefficient, and over rated IMO.

Clippers need to get healthy first and foremost. And then some players need to wake up, even Griffin to an extent as it seems sometimes he is just so out of it. Then they need a good stretch of games (probably 10) where everyone is healthy with a defined role and at that point you should evaluate what you have. Why trade away Smith or Stephenson when their values are so low?

Look to rebuilding teams that have vets or contracts they don't want. Bojan Bogdanovic from the Nets, Danilo Gallinari makes alot of money but if he's healthy then he'd be worth it, Quincy Pondexter from New Orleans. There doesn't need to be star power behind this guys name, just need a consistent defender, who isn't a total liability on offense.

Posted: **Tue Dec 8, 2015 11:28 pm**

No, the team doesn't need a superstar, you don't need a team full of superstars. Here are players that could fit the SF role for the Clippers:

Trevor Ariza (and I'm aware of his poor shooting this season)
Marvin Williams
Thabo Sefolosha
C.J. Miles

...but the team also needs a third big man. This has been an issue for years. Two needs, neither requiring a superstar, and they have been a third big that can fit with both Blake and DJ, and a SF.

Posted: **Tue Dec 8, 2015 11:39 pm**

BlzMwt wrote:All will be answered, just tune in next time, on Dragon Ball Z!!

Seriously Wammy you create these posts that look more like a narrative or a story than anything, quite entertaining lol

You know, this is really funny: every time I try to post something serious, people treat it like a joke. But when I try to post something funny, and I suck at it, it's taken pretty seriously at my own expense. This is why I suck at recognizing sarcastic text. Without an audible tone, I take everything at face value, rendering all jokes from my side useless.

(This is not meant as an attack on you, just my personal observation as a poster here on RealGM)

Anyways, I need to have a narrative. Even without some kind of context, the issues the Clippers have right now regarding the 3 spot, Doc's penchant for favorites, reliving the glory years, the chemistry issues, and trying to erase his luck statement from the record are rightfully merited.

Posted: **Tue Dec 8, 2015 11:56 pm**

Wammy Giveaway wrote:
BlzMwt wrote:All will be answered, just tune in next time, on Dragon Ball Z!!

Seriously Wammy you create these posts that look more like a narrative or a story than anything, quite entertaining lol

You know, this is really funny: every time I try to post something serious, people treat it like a joke. But when I try to post something funny, and I suck at it, it's taken pretty seriously at my own expense. This is why I suck at recognizing sarcastic text. Without an audible tone, I take everything at face value, rendering all jokes from my side useless.

(This is not meant as an attack on you, just my personal observation as a poster here on RealGM)

Anyways, I need to have a narrative. Even without some kind of context, the issues the Clippers have right now regarding the 3 spot, Doc's penchant for favorites, reliving the glory years, the chemistry issues, and trying to erase his luck statement from the record are rightfully merited.

just because i noted the narrative aspect doesn't mean i didn't take it seriously. I don't necessarily agree with you, but every game/season/offseason there are numerous instances where you have to question what the hell is doc thinking? both as a coach or a GM. There seems to be no answers and it is quite frustrating. So for you to fill in the reasoning for yourself in that manner, I get it.

Posted: **Wed Dec 9, 2015 7:43 am**

Side note:
Anyone else think a super athletic 6ft 7in SF who is shooting 51.7% and 41.% from deep this season might be useful for the team? If so, I hear Wes is interested in some minutes. I feel as though we have some quality pieces but Doc can't coach them and hence gives up on them straight away. I doubt any new player we bring in mid-season will click instantly and solve our problems. Hell, even Lance is shooting over 40% from deep which is outstanding considering his reputation. If only his defense wasn't so disgraceful.

Posted: **Wed Dec 9, 2015 7:49 am**

excuse me but how many rings have you won? how dare you not worship doc rivers.

Posted: **Wed Dec 9, 2015 6:54 pm**

I'd have to check the exact numbers because of the Clippers' Hard Cap issues, but something like:

Stephenson to Orlando, Wilcox to New Orleans and Frye and Pondexter coming back would make some sense. Both of the other teams should be happy just to get out of those contracts moving forward and that gets the Clippers a 3rd big and a defensive body at SF.

Posted: **Wed Dec 9, 2015 8:52 pm**

Doc the GM did ok this summer but Doc the coach is the problem now. I wouldn't trade any of our pieces yet. Not until I am sure that we have used them to the maximum, that we got from them all they have to give. As someone already said, a healthy stretch where everyone has a defined role is needed for that. If our current roster really proves to be inferior and a trade is needed, I'd trade DJ than. He's the only piece we have with some trade value except our superstars, I feel that some cheaper center could anchor our D just as good and rebounding gap can be addressed with pieces we get back for him as well as with team effort. Pnr gravity and those exciting dunks will be missed for sure but ft pain and brain-farts won't. He and Blake can still be super best buddies, this is business...
I just don't trust him in crunch time of big games and he earns lots of money...

Posted: **Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:19 am**

Texas Chuck wrote:I'd have to check the exact numbers because of the Clippers' Hard Cap issues, but something like:

Stephenson to Orlando, Wilcox to New Orleans and Frye and Pondexter coming back would make some sense. Both of the other teams should be happy just to get out of those contracts moving forward and that gets the Clippers a 3rd big and a defensive body at SF.

If we're taking bad contracts for expirings we need picks to make up for it, just like any other team would. This perceived desperation to make changes that the Clippers are supposed to have is not a reason for us to take bad deals for free. In a vacuum, I like the trades, looking at the contracts, I don't.

Posted: **Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:40 pm**

Are those bad contracts tho? Pondexter makes about what Austin makes. And Frye is playing considerably better this year and on the Clippers he would have even more open shots. I mean maybe you could squeeze a 2nd out of each team?

Posted: **Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:03 pm**

They are contracts that no other team would trade for an unproductive expiring, yeah. You can probably replace their production with the mini-MLE in free agency, probably with minimum signings too. I'm not against adding them for dead salary, but at this point neither of them are bringing much more to the table than Lance is. Token 2nds wouldn't cut it either, unless they're real early 2nds. They'd have to add real players to the trade like say Ajinca, CJ Watson or Nicholson to get something like that done.

Frye is not playing better either, he's just on a shooting streak (somewhat) but he's still an awful defender, bad rebounder, and a guy whose turnover rate is nearly the same as his usage. Best case, he'd probably be Hawes all over again, just a lot more expensive. And we had to give up Barnes just to get Lance for Hawes, let's not trade in circles here.

Poindexter hasn't even played this season and has no timetable to return yet. He's injured every season and even when he's healthy he's no difference maker, just a shooter that struggles to get to league average shooting (only managed to get there in 2 of his 5 seasons). Nowadays, Austin is a much more productive player than him.

Lance's contract best use is to hold on to him until draft day, then attach it to a pick and try to get something actually useful from a team looking to unload salary for KD delusions. If nothing's there, then opt out of his deal and move on, at least you're not saddled with bad contracts. That was the point of trading for him.

Posted: **Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:33 pm**

This (our SF position) has been a favorite topic of mine for the last 4 years or so.

Every team in the league has holes, because the salary cap (and other constraints) limit how full your roster can be. The key is to 1.) make sure your salary cap is well spent, and 2.) then adjust or compensate for the inevitable remaining holes as much as possible.

As for #1, I think the Clippers are ahead of the curve in that we have 2 superstar players who provide great ROI on their max contracts. We have another player in DJ who I would say is roughly worth what we pay him, and JJ who is also a pretty good value. After those primary players, you do the best with what money and flexibility you have left.

We've rotated a lot of guys, a lot of decent players, through that SF position in an attempt to take the team overall to the next level. Enough guys that you start to wonder if the problem has not been the players we've tried, but what's going on around them. I literally just posted my thoughts on our SF position in response to Ranma's graphic below in another thread, and why I think we keep failing not just to find a SF, but more importantly to reach that next level as a team-

Ranma wrote:Can you find Jamal Crawford in the graph tweeted below? Don't forget to look for CP3 and BG. Also, take note where former Clipper and super bench-player Eric Bledsoe is as well.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/SethPartnow/status/674868825595191296[/tweet]

The Clippers have 2 solidly excellent self-created FG players in BG and CP3, as does OKC (who is also struggling to get to championship level.) That is absolutely great, but on the flip side how good is our offensive scheme at creating shots (vs. self-created shots)?

I think that is the part of the offense that I always have doubts about, that I was hoping a more dynamic wing player would help address- ball movement, cutters, weak side opportunities, that sort of thing. It gets a lot harder to create shots for yourself in the playoffs than during the regular season, and there are less easy transition opportunities too. But the way we run our half-court offense, the ball is in CP3 or Blake's hands 80% of the time. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, but then whoever we fill in at the 3 ends up standing in the corner most of the time, and more importantly our overall offense scheme/flow never improves.

It's hard for me to describe, and I'm not in the position to break down a lot of film to do a better analysis, but that's what I feel when I watch them play. And it's why I feel we lost to Houston and couldn't stop their run that game. They had a bunch of bench guys playing free and loose that passed it around to generate shots, we responded by trying to 'bear down' and end up using 15 seconds of shot clock to try to get the ball the Blake in the high post, at that point its hard to create a good open look for yourself or anyone else.

It doesn't happen all the time, but we regress to this certain style of play in crunch time that is somewhat predictable. Then when our second unit comes in, often it's the Jamal Crawford show which is more self-created shot attempts.

So that's what I think. I think the San Antonio Spurs, for example, have done a much better job of not only developing young players, but just as importantly integrating their skills into an overall offensive scheme so the team gets value from them on the floor.

If we're going to continue to play the same exact way, then I don't think bringing in another SF will make a difference, unless we got tremendously lucky and got a huge upgrade in talent level (which isn't happening, and besides every team has to deal with limitation.) So given the status quo, I believe Wesley Johnson is the best player to put in at SF, because his deficiencies won't matter and he's a pretty good shooter and athletic on defense and transition. If we wanted the Lance Stephenson experiment to fail, there is no better way to do so than have him stand in the corner for 3's (even though he's shot 41% this year.)

So I answered no to the poll. I mean obviously we would could slot in Kevin Durant at the 3 we would be a much better team, but again everyone has to deal with limitation. You ultimately win in this league by overcoming adversity and challenge, not by making it go away. So how about just playing better basketball with what we've got? I know it's possible, just not sure if we'll achieve it.

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2015 6:04 am**

Here are the numbers for the SF's as starters.

Lance at SF (148 mins)

Efficiency / Offense:

Shooting / Pace:

Defense:

Mbah a Moute at SF (90 mins)

Efficiency / Offense:

Shooting / Pace:

Defense:

Johnson at SF (69 mins)

Efficiency / Offense:

Shooting / Pace:

Defense:

The combined 217 minutes of Lance or Wes starting at SF has an average of about 114 Ortg and 96 Ortg and really doesn't support going away from those guys as starting SF's in favor of Luc. Of course teams played, etc are a factor, but Lance as a starter has a good sample size and productivity that doesn't suggest he should have been demoted. The team so far has hard a sharp decline with the starters playing with Luc, Blake's long mid-range percentage normalizing to the mean probably adds to that, but it's a pretty huge drop, they have been bad on offense with Luc, and they are never bad on offense over large samples.

That lineup has the second best pace of any Clippers lineup, only beat by the lineup with Jamal at SF which admittedly has not been bad either, 120.4 Ortg / 100.5 Drtg / 19.9 NetRtg and a 105 pace in 51 minutes of play, not to mention a very nice 71.4 AST%, 60.3 eFG% and 63.6 TS%. Rebounding is the issue there though.

The only thing we can see so far is that having Luc playing helps a LOT on the glass, but outside of that it's been the weakest of the starting lineups so far, and the TEAM's better defense might be more related to using less of the bench lineup of Austin / Crawford / Johnson / Pierce / Smith which is the Clippers worst lineup by far.

Just because it was interesting, the 4th and 5th most played lineups on the team are:

Rivers / Crawford / Johnson / Pierce / Smith (60 mins):

Efficiency:

80.6 Ortg

-28.9 NetRtg

48.4 AST%

Rebounding:

Shooting / Pace:

Rivers / Crawford / Stephenson / Pierce / Smith (58 mins):

Efficiency:

Rebounding:

Shooting / Pace:

Posted: **Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:25 pm**

og15 wrote:Here are the numbers for the SF's as starters.

Lance at SF (148 mins)
Efficiency / Offense:
115.2 Ortg | 97.4 Drtg | 17.9 NetRtg | 63.9 AST%

Shooting / Pace:
60.4% eFG | 61.5% TS | 102.6 Pace

Defense:
46.7% eFG | 74.1% DREB

Mbah a Moute at SF (90 mins)
Efficiency / Offense:
102.0 Ortg | 93.9 Drtg | 8.1 NetRtg | 66.2 AST%

Shooting / Pace:
44.4% eFG | 48.1% TS | 99.2 Pace

Defense:
49.7% eFG | 84.0% DREB

Johnson at SF (69 mins)
Efficiency / Offense:
113.1 Ortg | 93.3 Drtg | 19.8 NetRtg | 61.3 AST%

Shooting / Pace:
53.2% eFG | 56.1% TS | 97.7 Pace

Defense:
44.1% eFG | 80.9% DREB

The combined 217 minutes of Lance or Wes starting at SF has an average of about 114 Ortg and 96 Ortg and really doesn't support going away from those guys as starting SF's in favor of Luc. Of course teams played, etc are a factor, but Lance as a starter has a good sample size and productivity that doesn't suggest he should have been demoted. The team so far has hard a sharp decline with the starters playing with Luc, Blake's long mid-range percentage normalizing to the mean probably adds to that, but it's a pretty huge drop, they have been bad on offense with Luc, and they are never bad on offense over large samples.

That lineup has the second best pace of any Clippers lineup, only beat by the lineup with Jamal at SF which admittedly has not been bad either, 120.4 Ortg / 100.5 Drtg / 19.9 NetRtg and a 105 pace in 51 minutes of play, not to mention a very nice 71.4 AST%, 60.3 eFG% and 63.6 TS%. Rebounding is the issue there though.

The only thing we can see so far is that having Luc playing helps a LOT on the glass, but outside of that it's been the weakest of the starting lineups so far, and the TEAM's better defense might be more related to using less of the bench lineup of Austin / Crawford / Johnson / Pierce / Smith which is the Clippers worst lineup by far.

Just because it was interesting, the 4th and 5th most played lineups on the team are:

Rivers / Crawford / Johnson / Pierce / Smith (60 mins):
Efficiency:
80.6 Ortg / 109.5 Drtg / -28.9 NetRtg / 10.7 AST Ratio / 48.4 AST%

Rebounding:
67.3 DREB% / 36.6 TREB%

Shooting / Pace:
37.1% eFG / 42.5% TS / 97.2

Rivers / Crawford / Stephenson / Pierce / Smith (58 mins):
Efficiency:
95.7 Ortg / 96.2 Drtg / -0.5 NetRtg / 15.4 AST Ratio / 54.8 AST%

Rebounding:
62.7 DREB% / 43.7 TREB%

Shooting / Pace:
49.5% eFG / 52.4% TS / 95.4

Great breakdown and you know I couldnt agree more...

http://clipperholics.com/2015/12/06/clippers-whats-in-a-rotation/

Posted: **Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:20 pm**

Justin Russo wrote:The more I look at it, the more I realize that starting Luc Richard Mbah A Moute at small forward is going to really kill the Clippers' chances in the playoffs. Like, you can't start a guy with THAT much negative floor spacing and a refusal to shoot. He OPENLY refuses to shoot. That's bad. It hurts. I get the whole "yeah but you don't need much offense out of the 3 with Paul/Redick/Griffin/Jordan" there. I get it. But it's also wrong. You at least need SOMEONE the defense respects at least a little bit. No one respects Mbah A Moute there. Nor should they. He won't beat you. Ever. It doesn't matter if that respect is from corner shooting, dribble drives on closeouts, or whatever. There just has to be respect. Right now, with Mbah A Moute there, there's no respect out of the Clippers' 3 spot. It's even worse than the last few years have been. I get that he brings defense and all this "intangible" stuff that they spew at us, but come on. The results don't add up to that. The defense is a mirage at this point. Good teams shell them. Who do you think you play against in the playoffs? You don't play bad teams. So, in closing, the team can't constantly keep trotting Mbah A Moute out there at the 3 and expect to do anything in the playoffs. Simple as that.

Which is why the Clippers may jump in for superstar and FIBA gold medalist Rudy Gay:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ClipperholicsFS/status/689529544898912256[/tweet]

However, I did warn you that if the Clippers try to trade for Rudy, they may have to give up DeAndre Jordan not just for salary matching, but because of their bad reputation, and they can't be trusted. If they found a way to get Gay without giving up DJ, would you do it? If you were forced to give up DJ, but got a nice return in superstar DeMarcus Cousins - even if he is a malcontent - would it suffice you enough knowing that you still have Paul, Redick and Griffin?

Posted: **Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:59 pm**

Luc plays 20 min a game max. They have the tools if they need more offense, and Luc is the best defender in Blake/CP era. It's the defense that always cost them. I don't see warriors putting Bogut on Luc and winning the series just because of that. As doc said: defensively we are better team, offensively I am never too worried.

Posted: **Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:24 am**

Wammy Giveaway wrote:However, I did warn you that if the Clippers try to trade for Rudy, they may have to give up DeAndre Jordan not just for salary matching, but because of their bad reputation, and they can't be trusted. If they found a way to get Gay without giving up DJ, would you do it? If you were forced to give up DJ, but got a nice return in superstar DeMarcus Cousins - even if he is a malcontent - would it suffice you enough knowing that you still have Paul, Redick and Griffin?

I used to advocate that the Clippers trade for Rudy Gay, mostly in trading Corey Maggette to secure a pick in order to select him in the 2006 draft; the Rockets ended up actually trading Gay for another Duke player instead in Shane Battier. I even defended him when he and O.J. Mayo were at odds as Grizzlies teammates. I argued that Mayo was too ball-dominant forcing Gay to look for his own shots.

While I used to view Gay as a lump of clay in need of molding who exhibited potential to be an athletic all-around player who could be a good teammate, that time has passed. He seems too comfortable now in taking questionable perimeter shots with inconsistent effort. Despite his length and talent, Gay has been a disappointing passer and defender who doesn't drive to the hoop. He should also be a better rebounder.

Gay seems to prioritize scoring while not paying attention to the little things that would make teammates better and help teams win. His shooting percentages leave you wanting more given his skill and experience. With the jump in cap space in the coming years, the 2.5 years remaining on this contract with the peak salary of $14.3 million won't be too big of a burden but I'm no longer a believer in him. Would he help us more than Josh Smith, Jamal Crawford, and Lance Stephenson? I suppose but it also seems like he brings a lot of similarities to the approach of the players being traded. I'd rather search for better options than commit 2 seasons after this for an uninspiring solution.

We're certainly not going to entertain any offers that require DeAndre Jordan for him. The Kings aren't likely to trade DeMarcus Cousins, but to answer your hypothetical, I wouldn't trade DJ for Boogie right now given the respective fits and chemistry even while I acknowledge Cousins' superior talent compared to DJ's. Ask again in subsequent years.

RealGM

The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Here's... Justin! And A New Answer

Re: The Small Forward Problem (And Doc's Answer)

Not That Into Gay