RealGM

EG would have traded them for Tyson Chandler and a first for the other morris bro

payitforward wrote:Ummm, what does anyone think we were going to get for IT & the rights to Sanon?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Robinson sucks and it's fine that we got him but maybe we shouldn't play him. 3 year college guys who still can't produce when they get to the league don't have upside? Sheppard needs to distinguish between young guys who are good and bad. Not all young guys are worth developing just because they're young.

Piff made this point in the Napier thread. GM's pay 2-3 mill for second round picks. Using the dead rotting corpse of ITs final days in the NBA to get a look at a young 23-24 year old kid who was a loto pick, is a fair price. He has one year left and a team option. If he doesn't do well we can cut or trade him next season and if he does we have two years of cheap control over him. We removed a net negative for the team, we took on a couple extra mill and we get to evaluate a young talent, who hasn't really gotten to play much cuz he's on a vet team. I would have rather kept Sanon. But it's not a bad move at all. Kick the tires when you can, that's what this team needs. And getting anything for IT was a pleasant surprise.

Meliorus wrote:Robinson sucks and it's fine that we got him but maybe we shouldn't play him. 3 year college guys who still can't produce when they get to the league don't have upside? Sheppard needs to distinguish between young guys who are good and bad. Not all young guys are worth developing just because they're young.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Meliorus wrote:Robinson sucks and it's fine that we got him but maybe we shouldn't play him. 3 year college guys who still can't produce when they get to the league don't have upside? Sheppard needs to distinguish between young guys who are good and bad. Not all young guys are worth developing just because they're young.

How do you know that Robinson sucks?

prime1time wrote:

Meliorus wrote:Robinson sucks and it's fine that we got him but maybe we shouldn't play him. 3 year college guys who still can't produce when they get to the league don't have upside? Sheppard needs to distinguish between young guys who are good and bad. Not all young guys are worth developing just because they're young.

How do you know that Robinson sucks?

Shooting percentages, wingspan, frame, age. There's not much going for him! We'll see though.

Meliorus wrote:

prime1time wrote:

Meliorus wrote:Robinson sucks and it's fine that we got him but maybe we shouldn't play him. 3 year college guys who still can't produce when they get to the league don't have upside? Sheppard needs to distinguish between young guys who are good and bad. Not all young guys are worth developing just because they're young.

How do you know that Robinson sucks?

Shooting percentages, wingspan, frame, age. There's not much going for him! We'll see though.

6'5, 6'7.25 wingspan. Not terrible. His frame is fine. But the man can clearly hoop. What did you say about Otto in his first year and a half?

You can't really take too much form his numbers with the clippers. He was behind vet guards on play off and chip level teams. In college and the g league his numbers were decent.

prime1time wrote:

Meliorus wrote:

prime1time wrote:How do you know that Robinson sucks?

Shooting percentages, wingspan, frame, age. There's not much going for him! We'll see though.

6'5, 6'7.25 wingspan. Not terrible. His frame is fine. But the man can clearly hoop. What did you say about Otto in his first year and a half?

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Meliorus wrote:Robinson sucks and it's fine that we got him but maybe we shouldn't play him. 3 year college guys who still can't produce when they get to the league don't have upside? Sheppard needs to distinguish between young guys who are good and bad. Not all young guys are worth developing just because they're young.

Gee, maybe we should give this kid a chance before we turn the firing squad on him, what do you think?

Meliorus wrote:

prime1time wrote:

Meliorus wrote:Robinson sucks and it's fine that we got him but maybe we shouldn't play him. 3 year college guys who still can't produce when they get to the league don't have upside? Sheppard needs to distinguish between young guys who are good and bad. Not all young guys are worth developing just because they're young.

How do you know that Robinson sucks?

Shooting percentages, wingspan, frame, age. There's not much going for him! We'll see though.

Well, that's better -- should have read that before previous post. Sorry....

Fine to pay something to see what he can do.

Robinson showed very little feel for the game tonight.

I’d really rather see Garrison Matthews given an extended shot.

long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:Robinson showed very little feel for the game tonight.

I’d really rather see Garrison Matthews given an extended shot.

Why would we give Matthews an extended shot? We already know what we have. How about we give Robinson more than one game...

long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:Robinson showed very little feel for the game tonight.

I’d really rather see Garrison Matthews given an extended shot.

Robinson was jacking shots, trying to show what he can do. He did show that he has a handle and some "wiggle" to his game that will help him generate shots, but that just makes him Austin Rivers. He needs to actually make the shots to be an effective player.

Let's give him a little time though. Basically, his entire career has been snippets of garbage time minutes where he's trying to get noticed. It breeds bad habits. Let's see if he can be effective if given a regular spot in the rotation and a specific role.

I'm not too worried about accommodating Garrison Mathews at the moment. Mathews has already shown what he can and can't do and he's locked up for another year (with RFA rights after that). I'm okay with kicking the tires on Robinson for a little while.

And its not like Mathews isn't playing hes just playing d league games.

nate33 wrote:

long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:Robinson showed very little feel for the game tonight.

I’d really rather see Garrison Matthews given an extended shot.

Robinson was jacking shots, trying to show what he can do. He did show that he has a handle and some "wiggle" to his game that will help him generate shots, but that just makes him Austin Rivers. He needs to actually make the shots to be an effective player.

Let's give him a little time though. Basically, his entire career has been snippets of garbage time minutes where he's trying to get noticed. It breeds bad habits. Let's see if he can be effective if given a regular spot in the rotation and a specific role.

I'm not too worried about accommodating Garrison Mathews at the moment. Mathews has already shown what he can and can't do and he's locked up for another year (with RFA rights after that). I'm okay with kicking the tires on Robinson for a little while.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:Robinson showed very little feel for the game tonight.

I’d really rather see Garrison Matthews given an extended shot.

The Clippers board didn't have much good to say about Robinson, but we got rid of IT and we have a free look so we shall see....

Moved this from the grizzly game thread...

Meliorus wrote:

DCZards wrote:

long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:...I’m not seeing it from Robinson.

Robinson has played all of 16 minutes as a Wizard. That's a pretty small sample size isn't it?

We actually have 42 games of 11 minutes per game where he shot some very scary percentages. Like, Colby White level bad. Wait, worse than him too.

Look... we got Jerome Robinson for IT -- who was terrible, wasn't getting any better, & wasn't gonna get any better.

Tommy could have simply waived IT & eaten his $1.65m salary. We could have picked someone up off the buyout list to replace him. Or we could have promoted either Grant or Mathews. Gotta pay whoever it is, right? Figure that's essentially a $1m salary. Total cost = $2.65m. The remaining % of that, I mean, given the season is 51 games old.

Instead, he traded IT for Jerome Robinson, whose salary is $1m more than IT plus whoever. So, the cost was the remaining % of that difference -- a total of $375K.

Of course, he is guaranteed for next year, right? Meaning he'll take up a roster spot if he's still with us. Let's say he's terrible & winds up the 15th guy. Since the 15th guy would most likely cost @$1.5m, we will have spent an extra $2m next year.

In other words, we just committed @ $2.5m over current expenditures. In short, for the usual cost of a R2 pick, we got a guy picked #13 in the draft 19 months ago.

Plus, you know what, if we want to trade him over the Summer, he'll be tradable & he'll fit easily into most kinds of deals. Why will he be tradable? B/c he is a recent lottery pick who hasn't yet had a lot of minutes. Guys like that retain their value for a few years.

This was a deal every good GM makes. Low risk, high reward if it works out, low cost if it doesn't.

prime1time wrote:

long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:Robinson showed very little feel for the game tonight.

I’d really rather see Garrison Matthews given an extended shot.

Why would we give Matthews an extended shot? We already know what we have. How about we give Robinson more than one game...

We and the NBA have more information on Robinson than we do on Mathews. Not surprising since Robinson has been in the NBA a year longer and was a lottery pick compared to Mathews being undrafted. Not to mention, Mathews has earned the right to his playing time.

payitforward wrote:Moved this from the grizzly game thread...

Meliorus wrote:

DCZards wrote:Robinson has played all of 16 minutes as a Wizard. That's a pretty small sample size isn't it?

We actually have 42 games of 11 minutes per game where he shot some very scary percentages. Like, Colby White level bad. Wait, worse than him too.

Look... we got Jerome Robinson for IT -- who was terrible, wasn't getting any better, & wasn't gonna get any better.

Tommy could have simply waived IT & eaten his $1.65m salary. We could have picked someone up off the buyout list to replace him. Or we could have promoted either Grant or Mathews. Gotta pay whoever it is, right? Figure that's essentially a $1m salary. Total cost = $2.65m. The remaining % of that, I mean, given the season is 51 games old.

Instead, he traded IT for Jerome Robinson, whose salary is $1m more than IT plus whoever. So, the cost was the remaining % of that difference -- a total of $375K.

Of course, he is guaranteed for next year, right? Meaning he'll take up a roster spot if he's still with us. Let's say he's terrible & winds up the 15th guy. Since the 15th guy would most likely cost @$1.5m, we will have spent an extra $2m next year.

In other words, we just committed @ $2.5m over current expenditures. In short, for the usual cost of a R2 pick, we got a guy picked #13 in the draft 19 months ago.

Plus, you know what, if we want to trade him over the Summer, he'll be tradable & he'll fit easily into most kinds of deals. Why will he be tradable? B/c he is a recent lottery pick who hasn't yet had a lot of minutes. Guys like that retain their value for a few years.

This was a deal every good GM makes. Low risk, high reward if it works out, low cost if it doesn't.

The main cost is Robinson's 3.7 mil guaranteed for next season - not to mention the roster spot might be better utilized. That may turn out ok, but it doesn't seem likely at this point.

payitforward wrote:Moved this from the grizzly game thread...

Meliorus wrote:

DCZards wrote:Robinson has played all of 16 minutes as a Wizard. That's a pretty small sample size isn't it?

We actually have 42 games of 11 minutes per game where he shot some very scary percentages. Like, Colby White level bad. Wait, worse than him too.

Look... we got Jerome Robinson for IT -- who was terrible, wasn't getting any better, & wasn't gonna get any better.

Tommy could have simply waived IT & eaten his $1.65m salary. We could have picked someone up off the buyout list to replace him. Or we could have promoted either Grant or Mathews. Gotta pay whoever it is, right? Figure that's essentially a $1m salary. Total cost = $2.65m. The remaining % of that, I mean, given the season is 51 games old.

Instead, he traded IT for Jerome Robinson, whose salary is $1m more than IT plus whoever. So, the cost was the remaining % of that difference -- a total of $375K.

Of course, he is guaranteed for next year, right? Meaning he'll take up a roster spot if he's still with us. Let's say he's terrible & winds up the 15th guy. Since the 15th guy would most likely cost @$1.5m, we will have spent an extra $2m next year.

In other words, we just committed @ $2.5m over current expenditures. In short, for the usual cost of a R2 pick, we got a guy picked #13 in the draft 19 months ago.

Plus, you know what, if we want to trade him over the Summer, he'll be tradable & he'll fit easily into most kinds of deals. Why will he be tradable? B/c he is a recent lottery pick who hasn't yet had a lot of minutes. Guys like that retain their value for a few years.

This was a deal every good GM makes. Low risk, high reward if it works out, low cost if it doesn't.

I don't disagree with any of this and believe that it was indeed a chance worth taking. All I was trying to say was that, if I were a scout, I would have left very underwhelmed by what I saw yesterday from Robinson. I know it was only 16 minutes of action on a brand new team... BUT, he looks to me like he'll struggle to elevate enough to get his shot off consistently. He also did ALOT outside of the rhythm of the game. Can that all change? I sure hope so. But, if you started suspicious that the Clippers let a lottery pick go for nothing because they think he is a bust, you likely left last night with the same suspicions,

long suffrin' boulez fan wrote:

payitforward wrote:Moved this from the grizzly game thread...

Meliorus wrote:We actually have 42 games of 11 minutes per game where he shot some very scary percentages. Like, Colby White level bad. Wait, worse than him too.

Look... we got Jerome Robinson for IT -- who was terrible, wasn't getting any better, & wasn't gonna get any better.

Tommy could have simply waived IT & eaten his $1.65m salary. We could have picked someone up off the buyout list to replace him. Or we could have promoted either Grant or Mathews. Gotta pay whoever it is, right? Figure that's essentially a $1m salary. Total cost = $2.65m. The remaining % of that, I mean, given the season is 51 games old.

Instead, he traded IT for Jerome Robinson, whose salary is $1m more than IT plus whoever. So, the cost was the remaining % of that difference -- a total of $375K.

Of course, he is guaranteed for next year, right? Meaning he'll take up a roster spot if he's still with us. Let's say he's terrible & winds up the 15th guy. Since the 15th guy would most likely cost @$1.5m, we will have spent an extra $2m next year.

In other words, we just committed @ $2.5m over current expenditures. In short, for the usual cost of a R2 pick, we got a guy picked #13 in the draft 19 months ago.

Plus, you know what, if we want to trade him over the Summer, he'll be tradable & he'll fit easily into most kinds of deals. Why will he be tradable? B/c he is a recent lottery pick who hasn't yet had a lot of minutes. Guys like that retain their value for a few years.

This was a deal every good GM makes. Low risk, high reward if it works out, low cost if it doesn't.

I don't disagree with any of this and believe that it was indeed a chance worth taking. All I was trying to say was that, if I were a scout, I would have left very underwhelmed by what I saw yesterday from Robinson. I know it was only 16 minutes of action on a brand new team... BUT, he looks to me like he'll struggle to elevate enough to get his shot off consistently. He also did ALOT outside of the rhythm of the game. Can that all change? I sure hope so. But, if you started suspicious that the Clippers let a lottery pick go for nothing because they think he is a bust, you likely left last night with the same suspicions.

This - with one exception. Why not assign him to our D league team (as soon as the team knows his deficiencies within our scheme) and see if we can works some magic.

So, for me - it was a risk worth taking if they take that step.

I think we get to have Mathews with us as much as we like for the rest of the season -- starting... now? or is that soon?

We sent out 2 guards & took 2 guards back; I don't see why Mathews pt should be affected. Especially given how much IT & McRae played. Plus, I believe that Mathews has been in as a 3 mostly. Anyway, I can't imagine that we won't sign him for next year -- I'd say that is what he's earned!