45 wins is better than 37 is the textbook definition of an awful plan.
Are We Having Fun Yet?
og15 wrote:There are excellent x/o guys who would be awful as head coaches because they don't manage personalities well
esqtvd wrote:Ballmer is building his Wall
Quake Griffin wrote:Nah. Kawhi was a good idea. Everything else was pretty terrible and it was recognized as that in real time on this board and elsewhere. It gets worse with every injury, failed season, and the “discovery” of our new Trojan Horse - we’re stuck with this team for better or worse.
Being stuck with a treadmill roster, my private parts, my hand, and some comfort that 45 wins is better than 37 is the textbook definition of an awful plan.
Ballmer is the problem. He is a mentally weak owner. It started with him giving the keys to you know who after Donald T was banned. It was more noticeable when he let Kawhi walk all over him to sign here. It’s culminating with sticking with this geriatric bunch to save us from Opening Night Embarrassment.
Not good enough Mr. Billionaire. We want a championship. If you subject us to 6 years of treadmilling just because other teams own our picks, you will be the worst owner in the sport.
og15 wrote:Every coach has their quirks and nuances, Kidd was considered a terrible coach all regular season by many Mavs fans, even when he started coaching them to a top defense after the trade, etc
Suddenly in the playoffs many people don't know how to talk about Kidd, is he lucky? Maybe he's not that bad? Maybe they simply didn't know as much as they felt they did? Etc, etc
That's the first thing to acknowledge, as fans, our evaluation of own teams coach is generally questionable and more negative than reality. Okay, but that doesn't mean there's never valid criticism.
Multiple Roles
Next is this, being a head coach is a job with more than one role, but many of us as fans judge mostly on just part of the job description.
There are excellent x/o guys who would be awful as head coaches because they don't manage personalities well, might not be good at listening to others, so they don't foster good collaboration, and maybe don't know how to motivate/"rally the troops". That guy is likely an assistant for life who gets a head coaching gig for a short time then goes back to assistant and people ask, "but why was he fired, he's so good at x/os".
The head coach job is a combination of leadership, people management, motivation, x/o's, delegation and collaboration, not just how well you can draw up a play, how you manage rotations or what offensive or defensive schemes you can come up with.
What I can say about Lue is that he seems to be a guy who is solid at many areas even if people say, "oh he isn't great at this, or he doesn't do this thing that well". That helps him.
Easily Disposable
The Clippers limitations as a team so far are not about Lue. In addition, as we know in the NBA, a long coaching contract means very little in terms of job security. How many teams are currently paying Vogel for example? Coaching contracts are the owners money and don't affect cap, so I don't care much about coaching contract lengths when teams fire guys and pay them for 3, 4 years after all the time.
MartinToVaught wrote:og15 wrote:There are excellent x/o guys who would be awful as head coaches because they don't manage personalities well
Does Lue manage personalities well? Seems to me like he lets veterans walk all over him and puts young players who don't have the tenure to complain yet in his doghouse. In other words, the path of least resistance. We could pick random volunteers from the stands to coach every game and get the same personality management that Lue's giving us for $70 million.esqtvd wrote:Ballmer is building his Wall
The Wall is reliant on the team itself being exciting and fun enough to inspire that much passion. Running back this old slow team so they can limp to another 4th seed and 1st round exit at best while playing an unwatchable brand of basketball isn't going to cut it.
og15 wrote:Esquire actually explains it well. The time to change course was at the deadline. At that time the team was rolling and looking like a top contender.
Changing course at this moment isn't valuable, it is just jumping on to a different treadmill, the treadmill of sucking with no point to it since you get no reward.
Here are the Clippers 1st round draft picks:
2024: OKC unprotected
2025: Swap OKC
2026: Swap OKC/Philly
2027: Swap OKC
2028: Philly unprotected
2029: Philly top 3 protected
If the Clippers let Harden and George go, and trade Kawhi, they cannot get a lottery pick by their own doing until 2029, and that one only if it lands in the top 3.
So I'm not particularly sure what people are thinking here. The next year that the Clippers can tank and get a lottery pick is 2030 draft, so 6 seasons from now, 29-30 would be the first tanking opportunity.
The Clipper best course of action is to retain as many tradeable assets as possible (Harden and George). You can always trade older veteran star players and get picks from someone, every time people say a guy is unreadable due to contract, someone traded for him and gives up assets. Now you're not likely to get lottery picks, because the teams looking to trade for those guys will usually be teams trying to contend/move to contention.
In this case your goal would be playing the numbers, getting a lot of picks (even multiple 2nds) and hoping you strike gold.
The other thing is that while doing this, you still have no incentive to be a bad team, so you can still put together rosters that can win games, because your draft picks will not depend on how you perform as a team for another 6 seasons.
Are We Having Fun Yet? wakelaunch1 wrote:og15 wrote:Every coach has their quirks and nuances, Kidd was considered a terrible coach all regular season by many Mavs fans, even when he started coaching them to a top defense after the trade, etc
Suddenly in the playoffs many people don't know how to talk about Kidd, is he lucky? Maybe he's not that bad? Maybe they simply didn't know as much as they felt they did? Etc, etc
That's the first thing to acknowledge, as fans, our evaluation of own teams coach is generally questionable and more negative than reality. Okay, but that doesn't mean there's never valid criticism.
Multiple Roles
Next is this, being a head coach is a job with more than one role, but many of us as fans judge mostly on just part of the job description.
There are excellent x/o guys who would be awful as head coaches because they don't manage personalities well, might not be good at listening to others, so they don't foster good collaboration, and maybe don't know how to motivate/"rally the troops". That guy is likely an assistant for life who gets a head coaching gig for a short time then goes back to assistant and people ask, "but why was he fired, he's so good at x/os".
The head coach job is a combination of leadership, people management, motivation, x/o's, delegation and collaboration, not just how well you can draw up a play, how you manage rotations or what offensive or defensive schemes you can come up with.
What I can say about Lue is that he seems to be a guy who is solid at many areas even if people say, "oh he isn't great at this, or he doesn't do this thing that well". That helps him.
Easily Disposable
The Clippers limitations as a team so far are not about Lue. In addition, as we know in the NBA, a long coaching contract means very little in terms of job security. How many teams are currently paying Vogel for example? Coaching contracts are the owners money and don't affect cap, so I don't care much about coaching contract lengths when teams fire guys and pay them for 3, 4 years after all the time.
Name the players who have gotten better under Lue? Who has he developed? What under the radar talent has he found? How many players have overachieved in the Lue ERA. Hell Doc got a few players to play above their talent. Lue s teams are mostly lifeless with no hustle and no scheme.
Hell almost any coach would start playing around with the roster to mix in a new player with a bunch of aging players. He tried for 2 secs with Bones but threw it out the window the second we got Harden. And Bones got progressively worse as the season wore on. We had a rookie playing ok and he threw that out the window and gave the mins to a washed up vet.
og15 wrote:The Clippers currently gain zero value from losing more games, it does absolutely nothing. There's no tanking to be done, so it's pointless.
og15 wrote:Quake Griffin wrote:Nah. Kawhi was a good idea. Everything else was pretty terrible and it was recognized as that in real time on this board and elsewhere. It gets worse with every injury, failed season, and the “discovery” of our new Trojan Horse - we’re stuck with this team for better or worse.
Being stuck with a treadmill roster, my private parts, my hand, and some comfort that 45 wins is better than 37 is the textbook definition of an awful plan.
Ballmer is the problem. He is a mentally weak owner. It started with him giving the keys to you know who after Donald T was banned. It was more noticeable when he let Kawhi walk all over him to sign here. It’s culminating with sticking with this geriatric bunch to save us from Opening Night Embarrassment.
Not good enough Mr. Billionaire. We want a championship. If you subject us to 6 years of treadmilling just because other teams own our picks, you will be the worst owner in the sport.
Esquire actually explains it well. The time to change course was at the deadline. At that time the team was rolling and looking like a top contender.
Changing course at this moment isn't valuable, it is just jumping on to a different treadmill, the treadmill of sucking with no point to it since you get no reward.
Here are the Clippers 1st round draft picks:
2024: OKC unprotected
2025: Swap OKC
2026: Swap OKC/Philly
2027: Swap OKC
2028: Philly unprotected
2029: Philly top 3 protected
If the Clippers let Harden and George go, and trade Kawhi, they cannot get a lottery pick by their own doing until 2029, and that one only if it lands in the top 3.
So I'm not particularly sure what people are thinking here. The next year that the Clippers can tank and get a lottery pick is 2030 draft, so 6 seasons from now, 29-30 would be the first tanking opportunity.
The Clipper best course of action is to retain as many tradeable assets as possible (Harden and George). You can always trade older veteran star players and get picks from someone, every time people say a guy is unreadable due to contract, someone traded for him and gives up assets. Now you're not likely to get lottery picks, because the teams looking to trade for those guys will usually be teams trying to contend/move to contention.
In this case your goal would be playing the numbers, getting a lot of picks (even multiple 2nds) and hoping you strike gold.
The other thing is that while doing this, you still have no incentive to be a bad team, so you can still put together rosters that can win games, because your draft picks will not depend on how you perform as a team for another 6 seasons.
MartinToVaught wrote:og15 wrote:The Clippers currently gain zero value from losing more games, it does absolutely nothing. There's no tanking to be done, so it's pointless.
The problem with this argument is the assumption that making any changes guarantees that we'll lose more games, and conversely, that running it back as-is guarantees that we won't lose more games.
Next season, our "stars" will be another year older, slower and more fragile. Memphis will get Ja back and be better than they were this year. The Rockets and Spurs will take the next step. Kawhi will almost certainly not play 68 games again. I don't see this as a guaranteed playoff team that just needs to keep doing what they're doing. I see a team that's in a very precarious spot and is one or two injuries away from imploding.
Even if I was on board with running it back, I still wouldn't want to run back this exact same configuration that's incapable of even winning a playoff series anymore.
Read the above post. Clippers have to be careful how they do this. You also have to have a believable pitch to have guys come back. If there's the idea that your going to sign a guy and trade him in January, that's not good.Quake Griffin wrote:og15 wrote:Quake Griffin wrote:Nah. Kawhi was a good idea. Everything else was pretty terrible and it was recognized as that in real time on this board and elsewhere. It gets worse with every injury, failed season, and the “discovery” of our new Trojan Horse - we’re stuck with this team for better or worse.
Being stuck with a treadmill roster, my private parts, my hand, and some comfort that 45 wins is better than 37 is the textbook definition of an awful plan.
Ballmer is the problem. He is a mentally weak owner. It started with him giving the keys to you know who after Donald T was banned. It was more noticeable when he let Kawhi walk all over him to sign here. It’s culminating with sticking with this geriatric bunch to save us from Opening Night Embarrassment.
Not good enough Mr. Billionaire. We want a championship. If you subject us to 6 years of treadmilling just because other teams own our picks, you will be the worst owner in the sport.
Esquire actually explains it well. The time to change course was at the deadline. At that time the team was rolling and looking like a top contender.
Changing course at this moment isn't valuable, it is just jumping on to a different treadmill, the treadmill of sucking with no point to it since you get no reward.
Here are the Clippers 1st round draft picks:
2024: OKC unprotected
2025: Swap OKC
2026: Swap OKC/Philly
2027: Swap OKC
2028: Philly unprotected
2029: Philly top 3 protected
If the Clippers let Harden and George go, and trade Kawhi, they cannot get a lottery pick by their own doing until 2029, and that one only if it lands in the top 3.
So I'm not particularly sure what people are thinking here. The next year that the Clippers can tank and get a lottery pick is 2030 draft, so 6 seasons from now, 29-30 would be the first tanking opportunity.
The Clipper best course of action is to retain as many tradeable assets as possible (Harden and George). You can always trade older veteran star players and get picks from someone, every time people say a guy is unreadable due to contract, someone traded for him and gives up assets. Now you're not likely to get lottery picks, because the teams looking to trade for those guys will usually be teams trying to contend/move to contention.
In this case your goal would be playing the numbers, getting a lot of picks (even multiple 2nds) and hoping you strike gold.
The other thing is that while doing this, you still have no incentive to be a bad team, so you can still put together rosters that can win games, because your draft picks will not depend on how you perform as a team for another 6 seasons.
Sign them all, trade them for picks.
It's obvious you cannot literally trade these guys for only picks, so we will be getting players in return. Use that to field your 45 win product.
I watched as a team I cheered for forced me to go to the Playoffs and lose to a Warrior Team in 2019 that I never wanted to lose to in the playoffs...all to sign a guy who was likely coming here any way and has reigned over the most boring and annoying era of Clipper basketball ever. This current team can certainly send these guys out, get players in return, hoard a few picks, and field winning regular season roster in the process.
I think you are underestimating the wisdom of fan bases. This aint the 1990s any more. Everybody knows wrestling is fake and the fans are much more involved with what leadership is picking for who is wearing the belt coming out of Wrestlemania. Sports fans know way more about the cap, their team's draft pick situation, etc. The fans are not going to sit idly by and say "45 wins and limping (literally) out of the playoffs is cool".
I live near Minnesota...the fans all wanted Kirk Cousins gone so they could move on and try to get a higher caliber QB. They did not care that on the other side of the door was possibly some "you don't know what you have got until it's gone" doom for them. This idea that the fans on the internet are the minority and the "real" fans in IRL who touch grass are going to be the ones enjoying the 45 wins aint real. If it is real, it will dissipate very quickly after another quick playoff exit.
That said, telling the Clipper fans to shutup and take 45 wins for the next 6 years is even less of an answer than the one I'm providing. It's lazy. It's a non-answer. We should be making moves to get from under these guys and to get on to better.
The fans will not enjoy 45 win Kawhi-Limp-Out-Of-Playoff seasons. They will enjoy some young kids playing their hearts out to 40-42. Heck, it may even attract another superstar that to sign here that doesn't have a gimpy leg.
og15 wrote:The team can't repeat the sign you and trade you a few months later like they did with Blake, and especially not with multiple players together, because it will set a bad precedent among future players and FA's as to how the Clippers treat you.
NBA coaches are expendable.
KL2 wrote:If options are that limited or unrealistic then Frank and company should keep their mouths shut. Or get a new spokesperson.
Don’t say you know you need to get younger and more athletic and then continue down the path you really want. Oldest, slowest, and least athletic.
Don’t say with the new CBA that you have to grow your own talent. Then throw every pick away or waste it on a player who’s on the stay ready team only.
Stop with the cheesy slogans like street lights over spotlights. You’ve done the opposite. Stop with the give no quarter or whatever. Especially stop with the all hands on deck crap. That ain’t true either.
Actions speak louder than words right?
And how soon they forget: January 29, 2024. The trade deadline is less than 2 weeks away. Everything's finally going according to plan.
https://www.nba.com/news/power-rankings-2023-24-week-15
Power Rankings, Week 15: Clippers reign as new No. 1 team
LA surges ahead of Boston while Denver rises to No. 3 in another week of changes to the Top 10.
Are We Having Fun Yet? og15 wrote:Every coach has their quirks and nuances, Kidd was considered a terrible coach all regular season by many Mavs fans, even when he started coaching them to a top defense after the trade, etc
Suddenly in the playoffs many people don't know how to talk about Kidd, is he lucky? Maybe he's not that bad? Maybe they simply didn't know as much as they felt they did? Etc, etc
That's the first thing to acknowledge, as fans, our evaluation of own teams coach is generally questionable and more negative than reality. Okay, but that doesn't mean there's never valid criticism.
Multiple Roles
Next is this, being a head coach is a job with more than one role, but many of us as fans judge mostly on just part of the job description.
There are excellent x/o guys who would be awful as head coaches because they don't manage personalities well, might not be good at listening to others, so they don't foster good collaboration, and maybe don't know how to motivate/"rally the troops". That guy is likely an assistant for life who gets a head coaching gig for a short time then goes back to assistant and people ask, "but why was he fired, he's so good at x/os".
The head coach job is a combination of leadership, people management, motivation, x/o's, delegation and collaboration, not just how well you can draw up a play, how you manage rotations or what offensive or defensive schemes you can come up with.
What I can say about Lue is that he seems to be a guy who is solid at many areas even if people say, "oh he isn't great at this, or he doesn't do this thing that well". That helps him.
Easily Disposable
The Clippers limitations as a team so far are not about Lue. In addition, as we know in the NBA, a long coaching contract means very little in terms of job security. How many teams are currently paying Vogel for example? Coaching contracts are the owners money and don't affect cap, so I don't care much about coaching contract lengths when teams fire guys and pay them for 3, 4 years after all the time.
Stringing together one good month in the doldrums of the regular season, in year 5 of this era, is not what I'd tout as "almost working." Nor does it vindicate any of Frank's recent decisions. We could have won around the same number of games and had a first-round exit with RoCo and Batum and not be as screwed as we are now.
Are We Having Fun Yet? nickhx2 wrote:og15 wrote:Every coach has their quirks and nuances, Kidd was considered a terrible coach all regular season by many Mavs fans, even when he started coaching them to a top defense after the trade, etc
Suddenly in the playoffs many people don't know how to talk about Kidd, is he lucky? Maybe he's not that bad? Maybe they simply didn't know as much as they felt they did? Etc, etc
That's the first thing to acknowledge, as fans, our evaluation of own teams coach is generally questionable and more negative than reality. Okay, but that doesn't mean there's never valid criticism.
Multiple Roles
Next is this, being a head coach is a job with more than one role, but many of us as fans judge mostly on just part of the job description.
There are excellent x/o guys who would be awful as head coaches because they don't manage personalities well, might not be good at listening to others, so they don't foster good collaboration, and maybe don't know how to motivate/"rally the troops". That guy is likely an assistant for life who gets a head coaching gig for a short time then goes back to assistant and people ask, "but why was he fired, he's so good at x/os".
The head coach job is a combination of leadership, people management, motivation, x/o's, delegation and collaboration, not just how well you can draw up a play, how you manage rotations or what offensive or defensive schemes you can come up with.
What I can say about Lue is that he seems to be a guy who is solid at many areas even if people say, "oh he isn't great at this, or he doesn't do this thing that well". That helps him.
Easily Disposable
The Clippers limitations as a team so far are not about Lue. In addition, as we know in the NBA, a long coaching contract means very little in terms of job security. How many teams are currently paying Vogel for example? Coaching contracts are the owners money and don't affect cap, so I don't care much about coaching contract lengths when teams fire guys and pay them for 3, 4 years after all the time.
evaluating coaching is such a funny thing. one of those cognitive dissonance things where you don't realize just how little you know, until you wade into the depths. but as much as we might like to educate ourselves and understand more, basketball fans won't ever be allowed to step foot into said depths.
coaching i think is one of those things that happens to be far greater of an unsolvable mystery because we don't know how the day to day interactions go. we don't know how the players respond to this feedback or that. we don't know the locker-room conversations, the chemistry, and we will NEVER know a whole host of TOO MANY things in regards to what's behind the curtain - where conversely an amateur researcher could look up studies online in any number of fields in any number of credible scientific journals, and educate themselves to a greater relative degree of proficiency, with a greater insight to whatever big pictures are going on there.
so yeah, agree.
On March 9, 2022, Williams was named the 2021–22 season NBA Coach of the Year leading the Suns to a franchise record in wins at 64–18 and the best record in the league after finishing second the year prior in the voting.
On July 27, 2022, the Suns signed Williams to a multi-year contract extension.
On May 13, 2023, the Suns fired Williams after losing to the eventual champion Denver Nuggets in the Western Conference semifinals of the 2023 NBA playoffs.
Are We Having Fun Yet? Return to Los Angeles Clippers