Chris Paul to the Rockets

[Don Tommy]

If people want Rubio, why not a sign and trade for JJ? I know the Wolves pushed for him hard before he came to us, was their mutual attraction and JJ only backed out because he now had a chance to play with us? I hate seeing that he is considering Philly and the Nets. At his age, most players are looking for a ring and taking a paycut to play for the Cavs or Warriors, but JJ is after a money grab? Please don't say that he has never had a "big payday", a $30 million contract may not seem like much when Chris could have made 150% of that in one year, but that's a hell of a lot of money. He won't start in Minnesota but he would be the gunner off the bench and spot starter when one of their wings get hurt.

My issue is still, we don't need Lou, Jamal and Austin on the bench trying to get theirs when they come into the game. Commit to Austin at the 2 with Beverly starting PG, Jamal off the bench for one more year and trading Lou for a 3 or 4?

[Roscoe Sheed]

Ideally it would be best if the clippers could trade Crawford and rivers for Wilson Chandler or somebody like that

[GlenRiceARoni]

Sure was a nice haul. I like both dekker and harrell

"Get Out the Way, Let the Real F. Ballas thru" - Juvenile

[Ranma]

Making poor equity decisions is why we're in this mess in the first place.

It's why we never had a team good enough to win a ring. It's why chris paul up and left. It might be why durant never signed here. Year after year the team squandered virtually every single useful resource available to now.

That people actually talk about using blake in a s/t at this point is beyond perplexing, and maddening to boot. I don't just see it here, i see it other places as well. Blake just has huge value in so many ways if we can sign him to a contract and he is almost literally the perfect antidote to our problems right now. And it's because, for one thing, this franchise is reeling and desperately needs a hero and new identity and blake is that guy, just waiting for us to sign him. As great as paul was, he capped blake in his ways. For another, he's a treasure trove of resources because he'd be a top 15 player in his prime on a long term deal that can re-invigorate our "farm system" with just one legit trade.

So you're in favor of giving him a full 5-year max deal when the talk is that other teams are reluctant to do so as well? Signing him to such a contract in a panicked response to Chris Paul leaving would pose as an example of the poor equity decision you stated you want to avoid. I've already stated that I'm open to bringing Griffin back, but if he continues to get hurt as he's already shown to be a constant likelihood, he becomes more and more immovable with a huge contract commitment. Just look at his list of injuries so far in the excerpt cited below. Today's Basketball Analogy podcast with Kevin Arnovitz and Brian Windhorst discuss how this is not exactly a simple matter of just wanting to bring Blake back.

Let's also not forget that it's up to Griffin himself what he wants to do. Who's to say he also isn't as fed up as Chris Paul was with the dysfunctional environment that Doc has created during his tenure here? BG may just feel that free agency is his opportunity for a new lease on life by going for a more desirable change of scenery. DeAndre Jordan is the one "Big 3" member I want traded regardless. Like Paul before him, Griffin himself has to show a willingness to accept a reasonable compromise in order to return to the Clippers. I doubt Jerry West advises Steve Ballmer to just panic and commit the franchise to a highly risky proposition when the histories of Griffin's injury-proneness and Doc's failure in leadership clearly and loudly wave red flags.

Haley O'Shaughnessy, The Ringer (6/29/17)

So … should the Clippers offer Blake a five-year deal?
You decide. Griffin likely won’t start the season healthy, and here, thanks to the impossibly diligent Kevin O’Connor, is a complete list of his injury history:

• Sprained left MCL, January 2008
• Torn right knee cartilage, March 2008
• Broken left kneecap, October 2009
• Sprained left knee, May 2012
• Torn left meniscus, July 2012
• Strained left hamstring, February 2013
• Sprained right high ankle, April 2013
• Bruised left knee bone, October 2013
• Stress fracture to the back, July 2014
• Staph infection of the right elbow, February 2015
• Partially torn left quadriceps, December 2015
• Broken right hand, January 2016
• Surgery on the right knee — “minor” to remove “loose bodies,” December 2016
• Bruised right big toe, April 2017

The Unanswered Questions From the Chris Paul-to-Houston Trade

If people want Rubio, why not a sign and trade for JJ? I know the Wolves pushed for him hard before he came to us, was their mutual attraction and JJ only backed out because he now had a chance to play with us? I hate seeing that he is considering Philly and the Nets. At his age, most players are looking for a ring and taking a paycut to play for the Cavs or Warriors, but JJ is after a money grab? Please don't say that he has never had a "big payday", a $30 million contract may not seem like much when Chris could have made 150% of that in one year, but that's a hell of a lot of money. He won't start in Minnesota but he would be the gunner off the bench and spot starter when one of their wings get hurt.

My issue is still, we don't need Lou, Jamal and Austin on the bench trying to get theirs when they come into the game. Commit to Austin at the 2 with Beverly starting PG, Jamal off the bench for one more year and trading Lou for a 3 or 4?

That was then. Things have changed except for the Timberwolves' lust for yet another new point guard. Redick only considered Minnesota back then because they offered the most money. The Clippers had to engage with Milwaukee in a sign-and-trade to be able to offer him a comparable salary in order for him to commit to signing with us despite his strong preference to play in Los Angeles over Minnesota. The T-wolves are more likely to use their cap space to pursue a free-agent point guard than an aging Redick.

J.J. just bought a new home in Brooklyn and has shown that he clearly prefers to live the metropolitan lifestyle on top of making the most money as he can. He'll get more money and live the life he wants with his wife with expected offers from Brooklyn and Philadelphia.

[playaloc916]

My issue is still, we don't need Lou, Jamal and Austin on the bench trying to get theirs when they come into the game. Commit to Austin at the 2 with Beverly starting PG, Jamal off the bench for one more year and trading Lou for a 3 or 4?

I like that. I'm ok with Austin since he does play decent defense, but having both Lou and Jamal are redundant. They're both inefficient, sixth-man instant offense chuckers who do little else (Crawford can be a playmaker, but he just doesn't want to...). I hope we can sell high on Lou since he's fresh off his sixth man nomination. I'd probably try to get a defender or some size on the inside.

[playaloc916]

So you're in favor of giving him a full 5-year max deal when the talk is that other teams are reluctant to do so as well? Signing him to such a contract in a panicked response to Chris Paul leaving would pose as an example of the poor equity decision you stated you want to avoid. I've already stated that I'm open to bringing Griffin back, but if he continues to get hurt as he's already shown to be a constant likelihood, he becomes more and more immovable with a huge contract commitment.

For me, it's a risk I'd be willing to take. We all know he's got a great work ethic (although a bit immature), versatile, and is a crowd favorite. You hear about all these bad contracts, like Mozgov and whatnot, but in the case of Blake, we all know he can ball. It's just his health that's the issue. I used to follow the Rockets in the past, and I think of guys like Tracy McGrady and Yao Ming. You know they are top level talents, but are plagued by injuries. it's a trade-off.

But then again, all this discussion might be for naught, if like you say, he wants a change of scenery and wants out. The ball is in his court at this point.

[mkwest]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[mkwest]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[nickhx2]

I'd give him the max and i wouldn't even flinch. He has value to us as a franchise player and that's what the max is for, injury risk or not. And it's not a panicked response, it's just doing what is good for the franchise.

It sounds like your primary concern is cap space and what blake griffin will do to it. For one thing, with chris paul gone, and redick almost a certainty to leave, we're going to have more than enough to be flexible. Even if we give blake a max and re-up jordan for big, the team doesn't really have big obligations to anyone else. Signing blake/paul to supermaxes while giving jordan and redick huge contracts was almost a nightmare scenario in some ways. That scenario is long gone and the team can breathe again. Our new additions are on good contracts, austin rivers has a reasonable contract, crawford is partially guaranteed, and in the event we decide to add a new big three next summer we have a lot of options. Blake being maxed doesn't hurt that.

Let's look at it from other team's perspectives also. You say other teams are reluctant to pay him but then why is there any interest at all for him? He is the plan B for the teams that miss out on paul george/gordon hayward. Moreover, this is the NBA where some teams take risks, and some teams are just plain dumb. You literally could not convince me in a million years that there is no NBA GM out there who might be thinking "hmm, blake griffin is 28, he has 4 years left on his deal, i'm gonna give it a shot because it's a high-reward move that will lead to the next level." There are myriad young teams out there who, once their core feels set, might broker a trade because they want to go to the next step. Maybe milwaukee wants to move on from jabari. Maybe phoenix in a couple years thinks it's time with devin booker as the 1a and blake as the 1b. Maybe even boston next year goes "well look, blake healthy is ECF for the next 3 years so here have some brooklyn picks."

And it's not like he's millsap's age. It's not like he just had back surgery like dwight when he went to the lakers. Blake has a lot of skills and is improving those even if his hops aren't as good as they once were. He is still a very good player. With blake being the centerpiece again his value rises even more, and we've seen that he can do that for the team. That makes him an asset and even if his price would be high, all you need is one buyer to make it work.

Btw I want to add that one of the underrated myths in the nba is the value of cap space. It's great when you're a draw. With chris paul gone, we're not really a draw. Get rid of blake and it's all over. Blake being on a max contract won't hurt us in the immediate years and those are the years where we get to both evaluate where team is going to go and how to get maximum value out of blake if we so choose.

[nickhx2]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

i have to say that i really, really appreciate that these players seem genuinely excited to play for the clippers. it was not all that long ago that this wasn't the case.

[esqtvd]

Read on Twitter

Mike Wise was corroborated today by Doc Rivers on KLAC Roggin & Rodney radio show.

JJ really does suck. No D, and the experiment with him bringing the ball up to give CP a little breather failed. The move would have been good for CP, but not so good for the team because JJ was even more hopeless out there with the 2nd unit and no CP. [That experiment failed as well.]

This isn't to say Michael Eaves is totally wrong, but the nepotism narrative just took a big hit here.

Read on Twitter

[Ranma]

It sounds like your primary concern is cap space and what blake griffin will do to it. For one thing, with chris paul gone, and redick almost a certainty to leave, we're going to have more than enough to be flexible. Even if we give blake a max and re-up jordan for big, the team doesn't really have big obligations to anyone else. Signing blake/paul to supermaxes while giving jordan and redick huge contracts was almost a nightmare scenario in some ways. That scenario is long gone and the team can breathe again. Our new additions are on good contracts, austin rivers has a reasonable contract, crawford is partially guaranteed, and in the event we decide to add a new big three next summer we have a lot of options. Blake being maxed doesn't hurt that.

Let's look at it from other team's perspectives also. You say other teams are reluctant to pay him but then why is there any interest at all for him? He is the plan B for the teams that miss out on paul george/gordon hayward. Moreover, this is the NBA where some teams take risks, and some teams are just plain dumb. You literally could not convince me in a million years that there is no NBA GM out there who might be thinking "hmm, blake griffin is 28, he has 4 years left on his deal, i'm gonna give it a shot because it's a high-reward move that will lead to the next level." There are myriad young teams out there who, once their core feels set, might broker a trade because they want to go to the next step. Maybe milwaukee wants to move on from jabari. Maybe phoenix in a couple years thinks it's time with devin booker as the 1a and blake as the 1b. Maybe even boston next year goes "well look, blake healthy is ECF for the next 3 years so here have some brooklyn picks."
...

Btw I want to add that one of the underrated myths in the nba is the value of cap space. It's great when you're a draw. With chris paul gone, we're not really a draw. Get rid of blake and it's all over. Blake being on a max contract won't hurt us in the immediate years and those are the years where we get to both evaluate where team is going to go and how to get maximum value out of blake if we so choose.

Yes, my concern is cap space and long-term flexibility, but that is in relation to committing to Griffin as a centerpiece for the organization moving forward. I'm all for keeping him as long as it is on a more manageable risk proposition. You make a good point about him not having a serious injury like a back ailment, but it doesn't change the fact that he is chronically injured. The hot saying now is the most important ability is availability, which applies to Griffin more than most. It's dangerous to assume that we'll be able to unload him for appealing assets if this continues to be a problem.

However, as you said, it only takes one GM to make a bad decision. Phil Jackson gave Carmelo Anthony a no-trade option. Just because Phil did it, doesn't mean it's a wise move for other personnel executives to follow suit, which is why we hired Jerry West as adviser instead of another Doc-like schmuck to continue on with the status quo of stagnant development. Yes, given the bidding process, there will likely be a team willing to give him the full max offer but it would be because of the panic of missing out on the primary targets as you acknowledged. Again, just because another team does it doesn't mean we should ape such actions.

We'll see how things play out, but I don't see the problem with going with a full rebuild, especially when we have Doc freaking Rivers leading us right now. Getting rid of Blake is obviously a nuke option, but as the Lakers have shown, you can be an attractive destination in Los Angeles in short order after making some smart draft choices. The best way to do that is to start developing young players, which in turn, positions us with better lottery position organically. Why is there such an urgency to put together a competitive team when we couldn't beat the Warriors with Chris Paul? We'd just be spinning our wheels again. That's what I don't get. Why be so desperate to hold onto something that hasn't worked?

[Ranma]

...I forgot to point out that even with teams willing to offer Blake Griffin a max deal, it still would only be for 4 seasons. This is just like the Clippers' situation with Chris Paul. Again, I'll ask, why should the Clippers put themselves into a more risky position just to placate the ego and feelings of a player willing to accept less elsewhere. We have to do what is right for the organization. Then again, that would mean canning Glenn "Doc" Rivers yesterday and he's still running things for the Clippers.

[Ranma]

This is an excellent article illustrating the dangers of committing long-term money to risky propositions, especially in light of the new salary cap where escalating salaries are now outpacing the rise of a slowed progressive salary cap projections.

Read on Twitter

Jaren Dubin, ViceSports.com (6/29/17)

Consider the Paul situation: a maximum contract for a player with ten-plus years of experience like CP3 comes with a starting salary equal to 35 percent of the cap. With the most recent cap projection for the 2017-18 season coming in at $99 million, that means a max contract has a starting salary of $34,650,000. Given the full 8 percent raises, the structure of a five-year, $201 million deal for Paul would have looked like this:

• Year 1 (2017-18): $34,650,000
• Year 2 (2018-19): $37,422,000
• Year 3 (2019-20): $40,194,000
• Year 4 (2020-21): $42,966,000
• Year 5 (2021-22): $45,738,000

Back when the 2017-18 cap was expected to come in at $101 million, USA Today's Jeff Zilgitt reported that the league projected only a $1 million increase in the cap for the following season. Assuming an equivalent increase of only 1 percent, we can now expect the 2018-19 cap to come in at or around $100 million. Already, Paul's deal would be rising at a rate far faster than the cap.

By Year 2, his contract would account for in excess of a 37 percent share. Barring a major jump sometime between 2019 and 2022, teams would be looking at paying over 40 percent of the cap to one player by Year 4 or 5 of this type of contract. Even the most optimistic projection I've seen would have this Year 5 salary totaling 39 percent of the cap (and considering the revenue shortfall this year, that projection is likely to be off by several million dollars). It's not surprising that the Clippers didn't want to do that with what would then be the 37-year-old version of Chris Paul.

The New CBA is Already Changing the NBA

[og15]

my two biggest problems with today

1. all the insane stories that wammy is going to make up
2. properly saying montrezl

Can't wait to read Wammy's post, I can't respond many times because I don't even know where to start, lol

[nickhx2]

well, at least we got #2 out of the way

[Ranma]

As I mentioned in the 2017 Off-Season Thread, Doc can deny that he didn't reject a Melo trade while still technically not contradict Michael Eaves's account of what happened since it was mentioned that he didn't respond in time after the 3-day ultimatum the Knicks gave him. Doc may not be a liar (I think he is) but he certainly hasn't been telling the straight truth whether it's his declarations or recounting of how things have gone under his watch.

This also touches on the Big Baby controversy where he mentioned the turmoil within the Clippers' lockerroom centering on Austin Rivers. I believe he even predicted Chris Paul would leave the team because of the dysfunction in the organization for which Doc is responsible for. Obviously, Glen (Davis) is not objective given his disdain for Glenn (Rivers), but it corroborates some of what Eaves was saying. Of course, Davis could be and very likely is one of the sources Eaves used, but I'm confident Eaves checked it against his other connections as well.

Watch on YouTube

[Ranma]

Read on Twitter

[UKClipperfan]

Well I wouldn't go as far as trading all our core guys and completely starting from scratch. Although Blake is hurt often, he is still a very talented player. Of course, we can explore trades with him, but I don't think trading him just to move on from the Lob City era is the way to go. There are teams that went for a full on rebuild, like the Nets, 76'ers, Magic, etc, that have been terrible for quite awhile, but still don't have much to show for it (well, the 76'ers are an exception because of all the injuries). There's just too much uncertainty in a full rebuild. If we had a coach that was great at developing rookies (ie. not Doc), I'd be a little more confident, but what good coaches are realistically available?

I'm not opposed to bringing Griffin back but I don't want to give him the full max given his injury history. DJ has a player option after next season and I certainly don't want to sign him to a max offer either. We should sell high now, especially since we should be in a rebuild or retool mode.

Yeah, there is uncertainty with a rebuild but it's better than knowing that we'll continue to win meaningless games only to bow out early in the playoffs year after year. And we're without Chris Paul know. Unlike the other teams you've mentioned, the Clippers now have Jerry West as adviser who has proven as architect of the Showtime Lakers and the man who drafted Kobe and united him with Shaq.

With Ballmer's ambition and West in the fold, we should be an attractive free-agent destination when the time comes. The only thing that has been holding us back and continues to do so is Doc Rivers. Our current dysfunctional state is the direct result of his lacking leadership. Getting rid of him, would allow us to actually focus on developing talent in earnest. We sure as heck haven't been able to compete in the postseason with him at the helm. He's the only coach in NBA history to blow a 3-1 series lead in the playoffs in NBA history.

[I want Blake and DJ to retire as Clippers, providing they want to stay of course. They could easily want to go in a new direction themselves. I don't see why you can't build around both of them. Rim protectors like DJ are very hard to come by. His development is one of the few good things to come out of Doc's time here. If we can somehow turn DJ into PG then sure, but I don't see that happening. If PG were to come he'd probably want DJ on the team anyway.

As I mentioned above, DJ is not worth the max offer he'll be seeking after he opts out after this upcoming season. He doesn't have a winner's mentality and is far from clutch in the late moment of games. Getting assets for him would be more valuable to us than having him continue to put up meaningless numbers for a team that can't come anywhere close to challenging against the Warriors. Continuing on with our middling doesn't make any sense. We shouldn't rebuild in half-measure. If we retool,
we can't commit to DJ long-term to preserve cap space for actual quality free agents.

I agree that DJ isn't a max player, but the reason he got the max was because everyone knew the cap was about to go through the roof. That aside, it would be detrimental to get rid of DJ unprompted, assuming he wants to stay. Its the same situation as Blake. If you trade your core players that actually wanted to stay, it sends all the wrong messages to prospective free agents that you want to sign in the future. Especially considering Blake and DJ were drafted and have only been Clippers. DJ is an expiring contract, so its not like you'd be getting a good return for him anyway.

Ballmer didn't pay 2 billion dollars to rebuild. The best course of action in my opinion is to get Blake and DJ to buy in. Then take advantage of the fact that you'll have in excess of 70 million in cap space for the summer of 2018. Until then you build the best team you can, like what Miami did last year. Be an attractive proposition to free agents that can tangibly see how good you are. This is what you call winning meaningless games, prospective free agents don't see it that way. We have some decent rotation pieces that can be used or flipped. The only obstacle is Doc, but he only has a year left on his deal if I remember correctly so he should be gone soon enough.

[Ranma]

I agree that DJ isn't a max player, but the reason he got the max was because everyone knew the cap was about to go through the roof. That aside, it would be detrimental to get rid of DJ unprompted, assuming he wants to stay. Its the same situation as Blake. If you trade your core players that actually wanted to stay, it sends all the wrong messages to prospective free agents that you want to sign in the future. Especially considering Blake and DJ were drafted and have only been Clippers. DJ is an expiring contract, so its not like you'd be getting a good return for him anyway.

Ballmer didn't pay 2 billion dollars to rebuild. The best course of action in my opinion is to get Blake and DJ to buy in. Then take advantage of the fact that you'll have in excess of 70 million in cap space for the summer of 2018. Until then you build the best team you can, like what Miami did last year. Be an attractive proposition to free agents that can tangibly see how good you are. This is what you call winning meaningless games, prospective free agents don't see it that way. We have some decent rotation pieces that can be used or flipped. The only obstacle is Doc, but he only has a year left on his deal if I remember correctly so he should be gone soon enough.

DJ and his agent are not going to accept that he's not a max player. They probably think he's a worthy all-star and snub off the All-Defensive Team. What kind of message are prospective free agents seeing from us right now for not giving Chris Paul a 5th-year max deal? Players jump ship to join the best situation for themselves whether that's forming a super team or going to the highest bidder. Sterling is no longer our team owner, so we don't have to worry so much about perception. We just have to go out and do the right thing for the organization and re-signing DJ to a long-term commitment doesn't strike me as a smart move. As discussed in the Off-Season thread, Blake and DJ are not drawing first-tier free agents to want to play with them. The pair has certainly lost the luster that drew CP3 to us.