RealGM

Big deal?
No deal?

I hope he signs on and stays with this franchise.
I want him to retire here.

So would it be more about rewarding him for past service or giving him that money in the hope that it keeps the team in contention for the next few years?

They're also going to give Griffin the max this summer as well..

They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. You could say they're committing $400 million to two players who have never led the team past the second round of the playoffs.

But the alternative is to let them go for nothing in return and then fall back to a team with maybe a 40-45 win ceiling?

At least this way, they'll be a threat and if key injuries hit other top teams, they have a shot at a title. Griffin is still young so he could still improve, say become a better 3-point shooter while retaining his explosiveness on finishes. But Paul has probably been at the peak. He could still play at an all-star level for a couple more years though.

I think Chris is going to age just fine if he'd stop breaking his damn hand playing defense.

It's not past performance for me.
I'm not a birth certificate watcher.

If we can't reach to the finals in this playoffs we shouldn't do that commitment. 6 years are enough time to test a team. Champions were grabbed the chance when they saw it and i can't see this core reaching to the finals at all. The time for us is to see that chance.

There are a lot of good guy in the 2017 FA market we can replace CP3 and still easily win 55 games for at nearly half price.
Jeff Teague, Kyle Lowry, George Hill, Gordon Hayward. One of that Jazz players are very practicable to sign. Bolded ones are hard to get but would be clear improvements from cp3 days.

Trade CP3 now and get expirings and draft rights.

Let Austin and Blake shine...

Start with firing Doc Rivers GM and Coach when we see early exit of days of may.

What would be the alternatives? Let him walk because you don't want to pay him? If that leads to good draft picks, maybe that's a defensible choice.

Or try to trade him? But what would teams give up for a soon to be 32 year old PG who will be making $25 million next season and expecting $35 million or more a year at 32-33?


Maybe Rivers convinced Ballmer that giving $400 million in extensions is good for the franchise but maybe it's more good for his job security?

the alternative to keeping a top 10 player for several years is letting him go with zero incoming return. and if you let him do you're still screwed by the cap. it would be franchise suicide. that's the big thing: there are no viable replacements when you let a guy walk because we're already over the cap. and it's not like the nfl where you get draft pick compensation for your FA's signing elsewhere in the offseason.

if for whatever reason you think you want to start over that's fine but you don't do it by letting cp3 and/or blake walk. sign em first then move em to a team loaded with assets.

wco81 wrote:What would be the alternatives? Let him walk because you don't want to pay him? If that leads to good draft picks, maybe that's a defensible choice.

Or try to trade him? But what would teams give up for a soon to be 32 year old PG who will be making $25 million next season and expecting $35 million or more a year at 32-33?


Maybe Rivers convinced Ballmer that giving $400 million in extensions is good for the franchise but maybe it's more good for his job security?

The alternative isn't pretty for a team with hardly any future assets. They have to keep CP3. You could do alot worse than retaining one of the greatest PGs of all time, who btw, is still putting up elite numbers.

For a franchise with a checkered past like the Clippers, sustained success and stability is important.

wco81 wrote:So would it be more about rewarding him for past service or giving him that money in the hope that it keeps the team in contention for the next few years?

They're also going to give Griffin the max this summer as well..

They're damned if they do, damned if they don't. You could say they're committing $400 million to two players who have never led the team past the second round of the playoffs.

But the alternative is to let them go for nothing in return and then fall back to a team with maybe a 40-45 win ceiling?

At least this way, they'll be a threat and if key injuries hit other top teams, they have a shot at a title. Griffin is still young so he could still improve, say become a better 3-point shooter while retaining his explosiveness on finishes. But Paul has probably been at the peak. He could still play at an all-star level for a couple more years though.

The problem is not those 2, it's whether the rest of the team is good enough. I think both CP3 and Blake Griffin provide net value relative to their max contracts. They're not quite in the category of a Lebron James, but we're not overpaying them either.

DeAndre Jordan is more of a stretch contract who we had to keep because we had his Bird rights, and nothing to fall back on if he left (due to cap.) Problem is that after those 3, there's not enough money to build a top tier championship contender, unless you get lucky with a draft pick (which we either fail at doing, or trade away for what turn out to be mediocre veterans.)

I think a more ideal complement to CP3 and Blake would be a high skill, dynamic SG or SF, and just hope for competence at center. But we have no way of acquiring one, so we grasp at straws (Jeff Green.) That is the reason I was really hoping we'd trade for Carmelo (assuming it didn't involve our big 3 and perhaps even Redick.)

If the team still had its draft picks, maybe letting him go would lead to higher draft position which could lead to a future star.

Lot of uncertainty but other teams have accumulated a lot of talent through the draft.

Maybe they didn't think there would be much of a trade market for an older PG who will command or expect max contract so they have to hope he remains elite through at least 35?

madmaxmedia wrote:I think a more ideal complement to CP3 and Blake would be a high skill, dynamic SG or SF, and just hope for competence at center. But we have no way of acquiring one, so we grasp at straws (Jeff Green.) That is the reason I was really hoping we'd trade for Carmelo (assuming it didn't involve our big 3 and perhaps even Redick.)

Lot of teams looking for those.

Heard or read that the Clippers inquired about Otto Porter and the Wizards threw the phone on the floor.

wco81 wrote:If the team still had its draft picks, maybe letting him go would lead to higher draft position which could lead to a future star.

Lot of uncertainty but other teams have accumulated a lot of talent through the draft.

Maybe they didn't think there would be much of a trade market for an older PG who will command or expect max contract so they have to hope he remains elite through at least 35?

It is definitely possible. I wanted DJ to stay, but losing him would not have been like losing CP3 or Blake.

The counter is that maybe letting him go would lead to CP3 leaving, instead of now verbally committing to staying on. Not because DJ is such a big deal, but if we went sub .500 this year then maybe CP3 looks for a better team to play with.

Somehow, we did have enough potential cap room to get a meeting with Kevin Durant. Assuming CP3 and Blake stay on, I don't know what possibilities we have when DJ hits free agency again. Maybe there will be a similar window if we renounce a bunch of guys, etc.

wco81 wrote:

madmaxmedia wrote:I think a more ideal complement to CP3 and Blake would be a high skill, dynamic SG or SF, and just hope for competence at center. But we have no way of acquiring one, so we grasp at straws (Jeff Green.) That is the reason I was really hoping we'd trade for Carmelo (assuming it didn't involve our big 3 and perhaps even Redick.)

Lot of teams looking for those.

Heard or read that the Clippers inquired about Otto Porter and the Wizards threw the phone on the floor.

It's ironic when you consider the gulf between the guys we have tried (Dudley, Stephenson, Green), vs. the couple of guys we were somewhat seriously linked to (Durant, Carmelo).

Cap spike this year. That is how the Warriors fit him in.

They're going to have a hard time fitting in key role players if Curry and KD both max out after this season.

Then in a couple of years, Klay and Draymond will also be looking to be paid.

Cap can't grow enough to fit 4 max contracts. Even 2 is a difficult proposition, because the rest of the roster will be minimum salary players.

Should we be worried that he might not stick to his word this summer?

Akklaim1 wrote:Should we be worried that he might not stick to his word this summer?

It's not for sure, until he signs on the line which is dotted. But we can still take it good news, better than if he said nothing at all.

Part of me thinks if he's agreeing to $200 Ms, he's a part of that LeBron school that isn't going to take any less than he can get anymore just to please and appease people who say you should take less to win.

Well he was a key member of the players association which negotiated this new CBA, which allows this kind of contract, to discourage situations like KD leaving OKC.

So he'd have to leave $30 million on the table in the summer of 2018 if another team then were willing to offer him the max to a then 33-year old PG.

DieHardFan wrote:If we can't reach to the finals in this playoffs we shouldn't do that commitment. 6 years are enough time to test a team. Champions were grabbed the chance when they saw it and i can't see this core reaching to the finals at all. The time for us is to see that chance.

There are a lot of good guy in the 2017 FA market we can replace CP3 and still easily win 55 games for at nearly half price.
Jeff Teague, Kyle Lowry, George Hill, Gordon Hayward. One of that Jazz players are very practicable to sign. Bolded ones are hard to get but would be clear improvements from cp3 days.

Trade CP3 now and get expirings and draft rights.

Let Austin and Blake shine...

Start with firing Doc Rivers GM and Coach when we see early exit of days of may.

Are you taking into account the salary cap or how is this working if you trade Paul for expiring contracts? Is Redick still supposed to be on the team or are you letting him go? Based on the contracts being signed, what are Hill and Teague making, about $20 million starting at least, right? Why are the Jazz players necessarily practical to sign? Why are they leaving Utah to come to the Clippers, what would be drawing a guy like Hayward when the Clippers just traded Paul and won't really look like a better team and wouldn't be able to give him as much money? Kyle Lowry is going to be looking for something in the range between at least the 25% to 30% max, so we're still talking about $26-30 million starting contract for him. Clippers can't even create that much salary.

Okay, let's say the Clippers trade Paul for all expiring contracts. During the off-season, the Clippers would have $94 million in salary with: Griffin, Jordan, Rivers, Crawford, Johnson, Mbah, Johnson, Stone, Speights (hold), Redick (hold). This excludes holds for Bass, Felton and Anderson, let's say they renounce those. The salary cap is $103 million. Add the roster charges, and this means the Clippers would have about $7.8 million in cap space. If they renounced Speights, and if Mbah opted to become a free agent and they renounced him, it would go up to $10.6 million. The MLE is between $8-9 million next season, so they would be better off not renouncing anyone and just using the MLE to sign a player.

There would be no room to actually sign any player of significance, let alone a max player like Lowry or Hayward. You see this is why people always say crazy things about player signings and decisions whether or not to sign them because people never actually look at the reality of the salary cap.

If the Clippers renounced Redick because Rivers is the replacement at SG, the max cap space they can get is in the range of about $21.2 million which isn't even enough for the 25% of cap max which would start at $25.8 million. Maybe you can get Jeff Teague or George Hill, but now you maxed out your cap on this team:

George Hill or Jeff Teague
Austin Rivers
Wesley Johnson
Blake Griffin
DeAndre Jordan

Bench: Jamal Crawford, Brice Johnson, Diamond Stone, maybe a draft pick for Paul if you got one for next season, minimum players.

You renounced all the other guys, so unless they want to sign for the minimum again, you can't go over the cap to re-sign them for anything more. You had to renounce the MLE to sign that PG you signed. Now you are capped out. Blake will get a contract starting at about $30 million, so your salary is at least about $110 million or so. So now, unless you got picks projected into the lottery, you're not going to improve, problem is that you traded Paul to the team you got picks from, so are they going to be a lottery team? The lottery teams aren't going to be the ones wanting to trade for Paul, it will be the teams who are in the middle and want to move higher, and trading him to one of those teams makes an already mediocre pick and even worse one. So you can now only truly improve with the MLE and minimum contracts. How is this a better situation?

og15 wrote:

DieHardFan wrote:If we can't reach to the finals in this playoffs we shouldn't do that commitment. 6 years are enough time to test a team. Champions were grabbed the chance when they saw it and i can't see this core reaching to the finals at all. The time for us is to see that chance.

There are a lot of good guy in the 2017 FA market we can replace CP3 and still easily win 55 games for at nearly half price.
Jeff Teague, Kyle Lowry, George Hill, Gordon Hayward. One of that Jazz players are very practicable to sign. Bolded ones are hard to get but would be clear improvements from cp3 days.

Trade CP3 now and get expirings and draft rights.

Let Austin and Blake shine...

Start with firing Doc Rivers GM and Coach when we see early exit of days of may.

Are you taking into account the salary cap or how is this working if you trade Paul for expiring contracts? Is Redick still supposed to be on the team or are you letting him go? Based on the contracts being signed, what are Hill and Teague making, about $20 million starting at least, right? Why are the Jazz players necessarily practical to sign? Why are they leaving Utah to come to the Clippers, what would be drawing a guy like Hayward when the Clippers just traded Paul and won't really look like a better team and wouldn't be able to give him as much money? Kyle Lowry is going to be looking for something in the range between at least the 25% to 30% max, so we're still talking about $26-30 million starting contract for him. Clippers can't even create that much salary.

Okay, let's say the Clippers trade Paul for all expiring contracts. During the off-season, the Clippers would have $94 million in salary with: Griffin, Jordan, Rivers, Crawford, Johnson, Mbah, Johnson, Stone, Speights (hold), Redick (hold). This excludes holds for Bass, Felton and Anderson, let's say they renounce those. The salary cap is $103 million. Add the roster charges, and this means the Clippers would have about $7.8 million in cap space. If they renounced Speights, and if Mbah opted to become a free agent and they renounced him, it would go up to $10.6 million. The MLE is between $8-9 million next season, so they would be better off not renouncing anyone and just using the MLE to sign a player.

There would be no room to actually sign any player of significance, let alone a max player like Lowry or Hayward. You see this is why people always say crazy things about player signings and decisions whether or not to sign them because people never actually look at the reality of the salary cap.

If the Clippers renounced Redick because Rivers is the replacement at SG, the max cap space they can get is in the range of about $21.2 million which isn't even enough for the 25% of cap max which would start at $25.8 million. Maybe you can get Jeff Teague or George Hill, but now you maxed out your cap on this team:

George Hill or Jeff Teague
Austin Rivers
Wesley Johnson
Blake Griffin
DeAndre Jordan

Bench: Jamal Crawford, Brice Johnson, Diamond Stone, maybe a draft pick for Paul if you got one for next season, minimum players.

You renounced all the other guys, so unless they want to sign for the minimum again, you can't go over the cap to re-sign them for anything more. You had to renounce the MLE to sign that PG you signed. Now you are capped out. Blake will get a contract starting at about $30 million, so your salary is at least about $110 million or so. So now, unless you got picks projected into the lottery, you're not going to improve, problem is that you traded Paul to the team you got picks from, so are they going to be a lottery team? The lottery teams aren't going to be the ones wanting to trade for Paul, it will be the teams who are in the middle and want to move higher, and trading him to one of those teams makes an already mediocre pick and even worse one. So you can now only truly improve with the MLE and minimum contracts. How is this a better situation?

how dare you using sound and clear logic!

Well MTV's whole thing for the first two years he was here was that Paul ruined the cap space because he thought the teams option was Paul's contract or having cap space equivalent to his contract. Then next was that if Paul took a discount, the team would have significant cap space to add more talent. I went through the numbers and Paul needed to take like a $5 million starting contract for the Clippers to have enough space to have signed any SF or significance since we were obviously only able to give him his contract due to bird rights.

People go on with these false conclusions without even realizing they aren't real or taking some time to understand the salary cap. So just wanted to stop the whole "why don't we just spend the money elsewhere" type of reasoning that ignores why teams can actually re-sign guys to such huge contracts when they don't have the available cap space to do so.

Hopefully it's not just ignored and repeated over and over again like it's a real possibility.