Clippers Sign Chuck Hayes

[Quake Griffin]

discuss

[Forte IV]

Chuck Hayes from a few years ago was a great low post defender. But from a few years ago.

[No-Man]

He is still a quality situational player, good effort, good post defender, high IQ, good passer, team first player if he is healthy he is a better addition and makes more sense than BBDavis.

Paul-Rivers-Prigioni
Redick-Crawford-Wilcox
Stephenson-Pierce-Johnson
Griffin-Smith-Dawson
Jordan-Aldrich-Hayes

Ideally trading Crawford for a 3&D wing will be the next move sort of, I will easily do Crawford for Webster.

[nickhx2]

the chuck hayes i knew was the definition of the blake griffin stopper. he's just one of those immovable trunk types, who probably doesn't play super well in today's p/r heavy NBA but he's someone you can stick in there to shut down some pocket strategies revolving around opposing backup post players.

good signing. would still like BBD even if a little redundant.

[TucsonClip]

His rebounding fell off a cliff last year. However, if he can regain some of that and still provide his at least solid defense, he is a good fit as a situational rebounder and defender. Definitely worth the look as the 15th man.

[mkwest]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DanWoikeSports/status/638471164398997505[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BA_Turner/status/638478425821458432[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/638474059509051392[/tweet]

Solid camp signing.

[Ranma]

With the 3 recently discussed possibilities, I like Hayes as a pleasant surprise signing, relatively speaking, but I am concerned if he has anything left to offer given his regression in production, age, and lack of height. I was hoping he could be an enforcer to limit the cheapshots taken by Griffin, but I think that's too much to ask for.

I like that it's an unguaranteed deal that offers the flexibility to make a move should someone else become available, plus, as noted in the opinions tweeted below, his bulk, length, and craftiness provides valuable lessons and competitive resistance in practice as well as a good locker room presence.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DanWoikeSports/status/638508676978835456[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/638466772757123072[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FredKatz/status/638465750118834177[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FredKatz/status/638468749616676864[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FredKatz/status/638468945872297989[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FOXSportsFoster/status/638471150381715456[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FOXSportsFoster/status/638471888306597889[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FOXSportsFoster/status/638472062395371520[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FOXSportsFoster/status/638472859447373825[/tweet]

[playaloc916]

Not a bad signing. When he was with the Rockets, I remember him shoving Bynum around in the post. I question how much game he still has left, but he's a low mileage player, so he should be handy for certain matchups. Honestly I would have preferred Davis due to him being younger and having a decent offensive game, but who knows, maybe this move will be better?

[Roscoe Sheed]

I think Big Baby would have been more useful.

[nickhx2]

didn't realize he was our 15th but i like him more than davis as that guy. really good point fred katz made by mentioning his value as a practice player.

in case some of you guys forgot, he ate blake up for like 2 years every time they faced off. obviously blake's figured things out by now but he'll still be a great practice guy for blake to test new things on.

[thanumba2clippersfan]

This signing came as a surprise to me. If he's our 15th man it isn't a bad signing. However I agree with those who mentioned how close Chuck Hayes is to his former self.

[McAdoo]

He is still a quality situational player, good effort, good post defender, high IQ, good passer, team first player if he is healthy he is a better addition and makes more sense than BBDavis.

Paul-Rivers-Prigioni
Redick-Crawford-Wilcox
Stephenson-Pierce-Johnson
Griffin-Smith-Dawson
Jordan-Aldrich-Hayes

Ideally trading Crawford for a 3&D wing will be the next move sort of, I will easily do Crawford for Webster.

Don't you think Pierce will start at the 3? I'm sure Lance will play more minutes but Pierce's shooting gets you off to a hot start.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[No-Man]

Pierce is basically a smallball PF and nothing else, at least Stephenson is strong defensively.
The ideal thing will be bringing both from the bench and getting a legit SF for Crawford, that seems unrealistic though.

[TucsonClip]

Pierce will play as many minutes with as many starters as Doc can get him. We have plenty of lineup flexibility, but I dont see Doc saving Pierce just to play him reserve minutes at PF. I dont think he starts all 82 games and will see his share of minutes at PF with Blake/DJ at C, but I wouldnt go further than that. Lance isnt starting over Pierce.

[mkwest]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/638791336607485953[/tweet]

[QRich3]

I doubt Pierce is gonna play PF for us any more than a few spot minutes in token super-small lineups. Which will be very few since 2 of our 3 best players (plus our likely 6th man) are over 6-10. I'd be very surprised if he wasn't the full time starter at SF.

Hayes is ok, nothing too exciting at this point but worth taking a look at in training camp. More worrisome is I have no clue what Doc is trying to build, I guess he's not trying to swap Crawford for a big, so what the hell is he doing. Is he just adding players with random talent and no regard for fit or place into the line up? Doing things this way, I can see the bench going the way last year's bench went, and him spending money and assets to buyout or dump perfectly usable guys like he did with Farmar and Hawes, and Dudley before them.

[LACtdom]

I doubt Pierce is gonna play PF for us any more than a few spot minutes in token super-small lineups. Which will be very few since 2 of our 3 best players (plus our likely 6th man) are over 6-10. I'd be very surprised if he wasn't the full time starter at SF.

Hayes is ok, nothing too exciting at this point but worth taking a look at in training camp. More worrisome is I have no clue what Doc is trying to build, I guess he's not trying to swap Crawford for a big, so what the hell is he doing. Is he just adding players with random talent and no regard for fit or place into the line up? Doing things this way, I can see the bench going the way last year's bench went, and him spending money and assets to buyout or dump perfectly usable guys like he did with Farmar and Hawes, and Dudley before them.

It's hard to read Doc. We've learnt that he's not opposed to giving players 0 minutes, so just because we have a Hayes does not mean he will actually play unfortunately. I personally will be disappointed if Pierce plays unnecessary amounts of time at PF. I want our bench to have a much heavier workload this season so they are more experienced come playoffs (Including Dawson and Wilcox).

[Ranma]

It's hard to read Doc. We've learnt that he's not opposed to giving players 0 minutes, so just because we have a Hayes does not mean he will actually play unfortunately. I personally will be disappointed if Pierce plays unnecessary amounts of time at PF. I want our bench to have a much heavier workload this season so they are more experienced come playoffs (Including Dawson and Wilcox).

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ByJayKing/status/639212389741821952[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/FredKatz/status/639212646978441216[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNForsberg/status/639216690803404800[/tweet]

[QRich3]

That's just Doc talking, he also said last year he was intrigued by Blake playing minutes at SF and never even tried it.

Yes, Pierce has been very effective offensively at PF last couple years, but that was on different teams than ours. Just try to figure out which two of Blake/DJ/Smith are gonna be sitting on the bench all those minutes Pierce might play at PF, and it looks a lot more unlikely. And that's assuming Aldrich/Hayes/Dawson get no minutes at all. There's just not a lot of room for him to spend significant minutes at PF.

Don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see it how he can play PF in this team, with the logjam we already have at the position and the hole Barnes left at SF.

[mike3]

Don't mind this at all, be worth sticking on guys like Zach Randolph to give Blake and DJ a break. Get some toughness, use some fouls. This is probably more of a locker room/ chemistry signing.