Moderators: ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285, Harry Garris
-[Clippers]- wrote:sixeleven wrote:Paul isn't a guy who can close out games
Have you even watched CP3 play? Total misinformed garbage here.
G35 wrote:Dude you were irrelelvant until a few months ago. All you do is criticize other teams and your team is the posterboard for sucking, and NOT paying players which is why they have only MADE the playoff's 8 times in 41 years.
bledredwine wrote:-[Clippers]- wrote:sixeleven wrote:Paul isn't a guy who can close out games
Have you even watched CP3 play? Total misinformed garbage here.
------
Is that why Chris Paul was swept this year? You'd think that if he's a superstar, he could at least pull off one win? Or that he'd score more than 17 points 8 assists if his team needed him to win 4 games in a row? Yeah, he can obviously be relied on to carry a team, he can obviously close. That's why the Clippers were swept..... even with Griffin? It's not like he doesn't have players to assist to.
Chris Paul is a superstar just as much as Chris Bosh is. He's been outplayed this year's playoffs by Westbrook, Parker, Rondo, and the little time Rose played, he made a significantly bigger impact (Bulls fell over without him).
Westbrook (easily had the best year of all PG's) is so far ahead of Paul right now it's not even funny, and I don't like Westbrook. I'm just stating the truth.
The Infamous1 wrote:bledredwine wrote:-[Clippers]- wrote:Have you even watched CP3 play? Total misinformed garbage here.
------
Is that why Chris Paul was swept this year? You'd think that if he's a superstar, he could at least pull off one win? Or that he'd score more than 17 points 8 assists if his team needed him to win 4 games in a row? Yeah, he can obviously be relied on to carry a team, he can obviously close. That's why the Clippers were swept..... even with Griffin? It's not like he doesn't have players to assist to.
Chris Paul is a superstar just as much as Chris Bosh is. He's been outplayed this year's playoffs by Westbrook, Parker, Rondo, and the little time Rose played, he made a significantly bigger impact (Bulls fell over without him).
Westbrook (easily had the best year of all PG's) is so far ahead of Paul right now it's not even funny, and I don't like Westbrook. I'm just stating the truth.
So shaq wasn't a superstar in the 90's when he got swept literally ever year? Your basically saying he's not a superstar because he got swept by the best team in basketball.
As for impact, the clippers were 32-50 last year and with Paul they have the best winning percentage in franchise history, and went from the 22nd ranked offense to Number 3 this year. With the limited training camp, Injuries, and shortened season,They did FAR better in year one then anyone expected.
[/quote]
You just came up with a theory, convinced yourself it was true, and then presented it as a fact. You have no proof whatsoever that this is what they did or what they are thinking.
-[Clippers]- wrote:G35 wrote:Dude you were irrelelvant until a few months ago. All you do is criticize other teams and your team is the posterboard for sucking, and NOT paying players which is why they have only MADE the playoff's 8 times in 41 years.
Overpaying guys like Mo Taylor, Darius Miles, and Keyon Dooling (the Hawks' method) most certainly wouldn't have led to more success for the Clippers, though. Probably wouldn't have led to many more playoff appearances anyway. It's far more beneficial in the NBA to tank and fail hard than to spin your wheels, give max contracts to players who would be third bananas at best on a good team, and lose in the second round every year.
Not really sure what the Clippers have to do with the Hawks, but whatever. All I'm saying is, don't give max contracts to non-superstars like Joe Johnson, and you won't find yourself in a lose-lose situation like this. That should be obvious no matter who you root for.
The Infamous1 wrote:Where did I say Chris Paul= shaq?
The argument was
"if you get swept, you're not a superstar" so by that logic shaq wasn't a superstar... Right?
This is usually an interesting point, that if they were over the cap either way, it didn't matter. Of course now with the new luxury tax rules it does matter.sixeleven wrote:Pimpwerx wrote:ATL had the option of not giving out an obnoxious contract and hoping to build a team competently like Indiana did. Indy should have cap space to sign that star playmaker they need now, and then they'll be formidable. ATL just gave out a terrible contract to a guy who's a fringe star, at best. They try going to him late in games, and it's just so apparent he's nowhere near the superstar that he's being paid like. PEACE.
this is all realgm hyperbole.
if Joe walked he would have went to Chicago to join Rose and Deng.
and if Atlanta offered a contract that was 30 million less, it still wouldn't allow the Hawks to add one more player (or center).
your point is just dumb and useless because a cheaper contract for Joe doesn't change the Hawks cap situation.
MaceCase wrote:The biggest issue is that the contract was given by a notoriously broke ownership group with zero intentions of making the further expenditures to capitalize upon it. What we see now and will continue to see is the deal costing the team other talent like saaaaaay Josh Smith and his impending free agency.
-[Clippers]- wrote:The difference is, we have a superstar to balance out the negatives of DJ and Caron's contracts. The Hawks don't.
As for Baron, that signing was made with the expectation that Elton Brand - who was seen as an emerging star at the time - wouldn't reneg on his verbal commitment to the franchise
og15 wrote:Baron Davis actually wasn't really a "bad" contract at the time he was signed. He was 29 years old and just came off a 21.6 / 4.7 / 7.6 / .523 TS% season where he played 82 games. He got 5 years / $65M ($13M/year) and was making less than the previous contract he signed. He didn't get the max or anything. Consider that Calderon got 5 years / $45 M ($9M/year). He was motivated to not suck in the off-season, was coming home, etc.
Brand decided to bail, the team became a rebuilding team, and well, the rest is history...
Caron Butler is not a good one, but not that terrible, and not the worst thing that could happen. 3 years / $24 M is not that terrible. He'd be more reasonable at 3 years / $18M or less, but $2M less in contracts will still have the Clippers as an over the cap team, or maybe even worse a right under the cap team without exceptions to use.
HMFFL wrote:MaceCase wrote:The biggest issue is that the contract was given by a notoriously broke ownership group with zero intentions of making the further expenditures to capitalize upon it. What we see now and will continue to see is the deal costing the team other talent like saaaaaay Josh Smith and his impending free agency.
Joe Johnson won't be the reason why Josh Smith eventually parts ways with the team, Josh Smith is the reason for it, and also because he'll expect close to a max contract (he may receive the max).
og15 wrote:Baron Davis actually wasn't really a "bad" contract at the time he was signed. He was 29 years old and just came off a 21.6 / 4.7 / 7.6 / .523 TS% season where he played 82 games. He got 5 years / $65M ($13M/year) and was making less than the previous contract he signed. He didn't get the max or anything. Consider that Calderon got 5 years / $45 M ($9M/year). He was motivated to not suck in the off-season, was coming home, etc.
Caron Butler is not a good one, but not that terrible, and not the worst thing that could happen. 3 years / $24 M is not that terrible. He'd be more reasonable at 3 years / $18M or less, but $2M less in contracts will still have the Clippers as an over the cap team, or maybe even worse a right under the cap team without exceptions to use
