Will I get to see CJ Wilcox this year in a Clipper Uniform?

[Quake Griffin]

Srs inquiry.

Was gonna make this thread about how I think we need another marksmen from 3.
Then I realized we have another shooter, I just never get to see him play.
Then I thought about the fact that Jamal Crawford is still on this team.


Am I gonna get to see Wilcox?
Hell….just feature him a little so we can deal him and get something back for him…SOMETHING.

/rant.

[LACtdom]

The most frustrating part is that during his limited minutes, he didn't actually do much wrong. He knocked down some shots, showed some speed, and wasn't afraid to handle the ball. Doc never plans ahead. He won't give Wilcox or Dawson minutes and then when someone gets injured and we need them in the playoffs, they will look out of place because they lack experience.

[Neddy]

The most frustrating part is that during his limited minutes, he didn't actually do much wrong. He knocked down some shots, showed some speed, and wasn't afraid to handle the ball. Doc never plans ahead. He won't give Wilcox or Dawson minutes and then when someone gets injured and we need them in the playoffs, they will look out of place because they lack experience.

Yeah I agree about Doc and his propensity or lack there of to develop young players. we are not the Dodgers ran by Andrew Friedman and Fahran Zaidi. we are all about win now or go broke type of a team, and that's okay by me. we have never won before, and our core players minus CP3 are still young enough. we are close. with our depth this year, we are very close. if we win it all, none of us could care any less about Wilcox's playing time. if we don't and come to a point in near future to blow this team up and start over, yeah there will be a ton of questions and Doc will have to go along with his team.

but with the depth we have now, don't underestimate Doc's nature to make a blockbuster trade to bring in the other 'SuperStar' to take us to the next level.

[Ranma]

What gets me is that the Clippers had arguably the worst bench in the league last season yet couldn't find playing time for Wilcox. Sure, the kid would struggle out of the gate, but if Doc would play him some regular minutes to build up his confidence, he likely would have been a better overall contributor than Jamal Crawford, who Doc insisted on overplaying despite his net negative influence. I'm certainly not saying C.J. is the next great prospect, but he could have been a contributor who filled some needs at a cost-effective rate.

If Doc had stopped trying to fit square pegs into round holes like Byron Mullens, Antawn Jamison, Jordan Farmar, and the ever-present Jamal Crawford then maybe Reggie Bullock and C.J. Wilcox could show him something. I mean just look at the opportunity his son received after being on the brink of being out of the league. Even with Doc's subpar draft acumen, the prospects he's draft still had a decent likelihood of contributing if given a decent opportunity.

[QRich3]

if Doc would play him some regular minutes to build up his confidence, he likely would have been a better overall contributor than Jamal Crawford, who Doc insisted on overplaying despite his net negative influence. I'm certainly not saying C.J. is the next great prospect, but he could have been a contributor who filled some needs at a cost-effective rate.

How sure are you of that though? You lot know I'm the first to whine on Crawford and on Doc for enabling him, but even when his impact is negative, who's to say Wilcox' wouldn't be worse? It'd be the more likely thing actually, he'd make us lose more games than Jamal in exchange for maybe developing a bit down the road, or maybe not.

I'd love for us to use our draft picks in players with a future, but it's not just as easy as playing them and they'll be good eventually, when you pick at the end of the first round, most likely you won't get anything from the kid no matter how you want to develop him. If you strike gold with your pick it'll show, and no matter the coach's love for veterans he'll have to end up playing him.

Thibs refused to play Jimmy Butler on his rookie year, but the dude was that good and he had to cave and give him minutes. Doc refused to play Avery Bradley much at first, but then the kid was good and he found minutes for him. I thought Bullock was starting to show some of that, in a more mild way, but then he got traded and he didn't have a chance to show anything else. Wilcox hasn't shown anything like that yet, just playing him because he's young and was a draft pick will probably get us a few more losses. Which at the end of the year could be the difference between playing the Spurs in the 1st round again, or having an easier path and play someone like Utah or something. Is it really worth it to take a long shot at Wilcox being something?

[Ranma]

How sure are you of that though? You lot know I'm the first to whine on Crawford and on Doc for enabling him, but even when his impact is negative, who's to say Wilcox' wouldn't be worse? It'd be the more likely thing actually, he'd make us lose more games than Jamal in exchange for maybe developing a bit down the road, or maybe not.

I'd love for us to use our draft picks in players with a future, but it's not just as easy as playing them and they'll be good eventually, when you pick at the end of the first round, most likely you won't get anything from the kid no matter how you want to develop him. If you strike gold with your pick it'll show, and no matter the coach's love for veterans he'll have to end up playing him.

Thibs refused to play Jimmy Butler on his rookie year, but the dude was that good and he had to cave and give him minutes. Doc refused to play Avery Bradley much at first, but then the kid was good and he found minutes for him. I thought Bullock was starting to show some of that, in a more mild way, but then he got traded and he didn't have a chance to show anything else. Wilcox hasn't shown anything like that yet, just playing him because he's young and was a draft pick will probably get us a few more losses. Which at the end of the year could be the difference between playing the Spurs in the 1st round again, or having an easier path and play someone like Utah or something. Is it really worth it to take a long shot at Wilcox being something?

No one is certainly going to argue that C.J. Wilcox is more talented than Jamal Crawford and, you're right, nothing is guaranteed with rookies. However, growing pains with a rookie are to be expected. The problem is two-fold. First, we likely won't know what Wilcox is capable of because he doesn't get an opportunity, but how does the possibility of him busting differ from the retreads that Doc brings in like Jordan Hamilton, Chris Douglas-Roberts, and Dhantay Jones? At least those guys were given a chance. Another part of a coach's responsibility is to develop talent and fit players into his system. Gregg Popovich has done it and Doc keeps saying he wants to be the next Pop. Also, yes, late-round picks are crapshoots, but I've illustrated before how there has been plenty of contributing talent available in the mid-to-late first round previously even if that doesn't necessarily apply to the Wilcox and Bullock draft classes. Again, San Antonio finds a way to not only identify such talent but also incorporates them into the game plan.

On the second issue, the problem with Jamal is that his iso play and lack of defense hurts more than just his individual performance, but the team's overall as well. It's true that part of the reason that the Clippers had the worst bench in the league last season was due to a lack of quality personnel, but that is exacerbated by having teammates stand around watching Jamal-ball. Other teams have had lackluster benches yet found some way to institute a system to minimize their weaknesses. Having net-negative Jamal Crawford doing his thing with his teammates regulated to spectator status is the worst-case scenario where bench players wouldn't know what to do with the ball in the few opportunities they're given.

Yes, Wilcox likely wouldn't have been a positive player in terms of +/- but playing him would have at least incorporated more of the team towards a more cohesive unit. Unlike Crawford, there is a realistic likelihood of improvement and evolution in Wilcox's game. Again, not because Crawford doesn't have the talent to be better, only the mindset (and Doc's enabling coaching) to stay the way he is and always has been. When a Crawford-led bench represents the worst in the NBA, then you have nowhere to go but up from rock bottom.

[QRich3]

Yeah but you can't just play any young guy and hope he develops. He needs to show he's worth it, else you'll be playing a guy that helps you lose games and he won't be worth any development in the end. Bullock seemed to me he was ready for more minutes, the little we've seen from Wilcox, I just haven't seen any indication that's the case. And we're trying to win a championship, three or four regular season wins might be the difference between having a chance or getting bounced in the first round.

Also, about Popovich and the Spurs, you remember the Danny Green and Patty Mills reclamation projects, and the Parker and Ginobili picks, but no one remembers that they didn't play James Anderson or Mahinmi, or that they gave away Dragic or Scola because they didn't find a place for them on their roster. For every one they hit on, there's a few that they didn't play at all, just like we don't play Wilcox. A player has to earn it some to play, you can't just play any young guy and still expect to compete for a championship.

Doc transformed DJ (a 2nd rounder by the way) into a star when Vinny was trying to bury him on the bench, and he got late picks like Tony Allen, Big Baby, Rondo or Perkins to be useful players. If we are able to draft a quality rotation player, I have no doubt Doc is gonna be able to find a spot for him. But Wilcox doesn't seem to be that guy.

[Ranma]

Well, if Doc doesn't have the right rookies to play and develop, who's fault is that exactly? Doc chooses the players he has on the roster including drafting rookies. Ainge provided him with the players on his Boston roster. Doc likely wouldn't have drafted DeAndre Jordan if given the chance. Part of the reason Doc selected both Bullock and Wilcox to begin with was because they were supposedly advanced players who could fill the roles of 3-and-D. Bullock was a Junior from North Carolina while Wilcox was a 24-year-old senior from Washington.

Instead of Bullock in 2013, he could have draft Rudy Gobert and instead of Wilcox in 2014, K.J. McDaniel was available. It may be unfair to expect him to go after Gobert, who was under the radar, but McDaniel was seen as someone who could help teams. Doc hasn't shown himself to be a great judge of evaluating talent or developing it even as he's done wonders with DJ. Also, with regard to DJ, let's not forget that he was pushing to trade him for KG and that DJ's development has mostly to do with Doc's motivational tactics, which no one is really disputing. DeAndre has always been seen as one of the most talented and physically gifted players. He fell in the draft due to mental issues, which have still manifested on occasion (see the Texas 2-Step flip-flopping with Dallas).

The point is that Doc hasn't shown that he's fully invested in drafting or developing talent, especially since he's been willing to discard draft picks in a nonchalant fashion. Even his preferred method of going after minimum signings has proven to be disastrous with this season being the exception.

You say that Wilcox hasn't shown anything to deserve playing time, but how can you make such an evaluation when none of us have seen what he can or can't do because he hasn't been given at least a decent opportunity to show his wares or build confidence? I was not a fan of either Bullock or Wilcox when they were respectively drafted, but even I think they at least deserve a chance to develop by offering attention and resources towards their development. It's funny how his son Austin was able to get such benefits immediately upon his arrival including dedicated work with Sam Cassell. Have we heard of any such talk with Bullock or Wilcox?

What's funny is that I've read that Doc previously has said that Wilcox has surprised him in practice with his ball-handling in games in practice, so there are glimpses of him having ability to contribute.

I'm not saying you just hand playing time to rookies. It goes beyond that. I'm saying that more resources and effort have to go towards not only development of such assets as well as identifying the proper talent who will fit our system. Doc has clearly illustrated a lack of doing such things during his watch as the Clippers' big boss. Again, benefiting from the bonanza of minimum-level vet signings has more to do with his ability as a pitchman than talent evaluator or roster builder.

[QRich3]

You say that Wilcox hasn't shown anything to deserve playing time, but how can you make such an evaluation when none of us have seen what he can or can't do because he hasn't been given at least a decent opportunity to show his wares or build confidence. I was not a fan of either Bullock or Wilcox when they were respectively drafted, but even I think they at least deserve a chance to develop by offering attention and resources towards their development.

Well, he sees them every day, and I trust him enough as a coach to know who he has to play, mostly. Not as a GM, or a guy who traces your long term plan (not at all), but as a coach he's more than earned that right.

And yeah, I was asking for McDaniels before that draft, you can check my posts at the time, and I was livid when we gave away Bullock for Austin too. I'm not gonna defend that, or Doc's track record as a GM, it speaks for itself. But I just wanna point out what you're asking of him here. You're getting on him because he didn't nail the 28th pick and the 25th pick in consecutive years, That's the norm with every GM, not an exception. That happens to the Spurs, and the Thunder, and the Rockets most years too. Talent evaluation is important, but when you get that late into the draft, dumb luck is just as important.

[Ranma]

Well, he sees them every day, and I trust him enough as a coach to know who he has to play, mostly. Not as a GM, or a guy who traces your long term plan (not at all), but as a coach he's more than earned that right.

And yeah, I was asking for McDaniels before that draft, you can check my posts at the time, and I was livid when we gave away Bullock for Austin too. I'm not gonna defend that, or Doc's track record as a GM, it speaks for itself. But I just wanna point out what you're asking of him here. You're getting on him because he didn't nail the 28th pick and the 25th pick in consecutive years, That's the norm with every GM, not an exception. That happens to the Spurs, and the Thunder, and the Rockets most years too. Talent evaluation is important, but when you get that late into the draft, dumb luck is just as important.

You're implying that we shouldn't blame Doc the coach for the failings of Doc the GM. While there is a little validity to that, I can't give him the benefit of the doubt in such a matter. This goes beyond just draft results but also the approach to talent acquisition. As both coach and GM, he has carte blanche to fill the roster with players he sees as fits for his own system. Again, he not only failed to do this with his drafted players but also with players he signed as free agents. It's not like he's some newcomer to the league who is unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the NBA; he both has played and coached in this league for many years.

So when he can't put together a decent bench despite hand picking the roster, I can't separate his failings as a coach from those as GM. After all, if a coach can't identify the right types of players to fit into his own system, that actually hurts a GM's ability to build the roster for him. Doc is ultimately responsible for the roster and how he coaches them, so if he can't do the job, then he should at least step aside as GM. He's basically the Jamal Crawford of GM's with Steve Ballmer enabling his destructive behavior. Doc has taken what some would construe as an advantage for coaches in putting together his own roster and turned it into a liability.

[QRich3]

You're implying that we shouldn't blame Doc the coach for the failings of Doc the GM. While there is a little validity to that, I can't give him the benefit of the doubt in such a matter. This goes beyond just draft results but also the approach to talent acquisition. As both coach and GM, he has carte blanche to fill the roster with players he sees as fits for his own system. Again, he not only failed to do this with his drafted players but also with players he signed as free agents. It's not like he's some newcomer to the league who is unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the NBA; he both has played and coached in this league for many years.

So when he can't put together a decent bench despite hand picking the roster, I can't separate his failings as a coach from those as GM. After all, if a coach can't identify the right types of players to fit into his own system, that actually hurts a GM's ability to build the roster for him. Doc is ultimately responsible for the roster and how he coaches them, so if he can't do the job, then he should at least step aside as GM. He's basically the Jamal Crawford of GM's with Steve Ballmer enabling his destructive behavior. Doc has taken what some would construe as an advantage for coaches in putting together his own roster and turned it into a liability.

Well they are two different jobs that require different skills, and he has a different team of assistants for each one. He is good at one and bad at another, I think it's worth pointing it out. And again, I wouldn't really count Bullock and Wilcox not panning out as a fail. The Thunder drafted Huestis and Goodwin (who they traded) right after us. The Spurs got Livio Jean-Charles and Kyle Anderson. It's a crapshoot. Would be nice if we hit on a Jimmy Butler or a Gobert, but again, that's as much talent evaluation as it is dumb luck.

It'd be great if he just stepped down as a GM, but that'd be career suicide for him as an executive. The man is trying his second chance and we'll see how it goes. I just don't think Wilcox not being an NBA player is something you can use as an example of how terrible he is.

[Ranma]

Of course, I'm not using Wilcox as the sole basis for my assessment of Doc. Look, Doc asked for the dual role, so it's on him. He has no one to blame but himself for the situation that he's in. It's not like anyone in the organization went up to him and asked, "Hey, Doc. Could you take on more responsibilities, please?" Again, the results of the draft picks are not the only problem, it's the treatment and usage of those assets. When other teams are looking to trade for first-rounders, he's readily discarded them mostly to address his own mistakes as a personnel manager. Draft picks are a valuable resource to find cost-controlled talent versus the free agent market. The fact that he's failed in both avenues says a lot about such incompetence.

Also, let's not forget that the Spurs identified Kawhi Leonard and traded for him in the 2011 draft. That was a clear case of identifying talent and developing it to fit a system. As good as Leonard is, it is unlikely he would have reached such heights had he been acquired by another team. Again, despite saying he wants to emulate the Spurs, Doc has not shown one iota of doing such things not only in squandering draft picks but also in dealing away assets like Eric Bledsoe.

I'm pretty sure everyone knows how hard it is to be a GM and coach separately and the challenges presented when you're doing both, especially after the Mike Dunleavy, Sr. experience, but Doc doesn't deserve any sympathy for biting more than he can chew. He basically demanded this in order to afford the Clippers the privilege of paying him his exorbitant salary. Plus, it cost us a first-round pick to hire him in the first place as well. He was brought in to get results and he hasn't done so in many respects.

For all the good he's done as coach in having a league-leading starting lineup, he's undermined those benefits with a lackluster bench that is spearheaded by Crawful isolation play lacking in defense. No one is exactly putting a gun to his head to play Jamal Crawford.

Hey, we're all hopeful that this promising looking season will finally live up to our expectations, but Doc has shown to be overrated in a lot of aspects. Again, he neither deserves the sympathy or benefit of the doubt for his failings when he pays lip service to his own preachings of ubuntu. How can he demand players sacrifice for the good of the team in one breath when he is unwilling to do what's good for the sake of the organization by stepping down from GM duties in another? He can't demand all that power without being accountable.

The bottom line is Doc is just as ill-equipped to handle personnel decisions as his drafted players are in contributing to the Clippers and Doc is solely responsible on all counts. Going back to the original point of this thread, playing Wilcox over Crawford would arguably be better for the team overall because we'd at least be playing team basketball even with the disparity in talent between Jamal and C.J. That is a systemic failure on the part of the coach, not some rookie who hasn't been properly prepared to contribute to an NBA team.

[LACtdom]

You have to ask yourself though, is Wilcox really that bad that it's acceptable for Doc to play players like Jones ahead of him when we are up by 30 and it's garbage time? Also Wilcox is a bit different, but I didn't consider Bullock a liability on defense and thought if we still had him for this season then he should get at least 10mpg.

[QRich3]

Going back to the original point of this thread, playing Wilcox over Crawford would arguably be better for the team overall because we'd at least be playing team basketball even with the disparity in talent between Jamal and C.J. That is a systemic failure on the part of the coach, not some rookie who hasn't been properly prepared to contribute to an NBA team.

Well you seem to really hate Doc as a person and that is making you be not as objective as you should, or maybe it's me being too optimistic because the season starts today, but anyway, he's f*cked up a lot as GM and has some quirks as a coach too, but I don't think it's as bad as you imply.

But as to the quoted above, let's go back to the original point of the thread then. You all know how much I hate Crawford's play and what he represents, but even then, I do not think playing Wilcox would be better for the team, no. Crawford's a veteran and as much as his shooting percentages are not great and his defense is suspect, he knows where to situate himself on the court, both on and off the ball, he knows how to do most of the small things that help a team without appearing in the boxscore. Wilcox is a rookie, his defense is even more suspect than Crawford's, and as any rookie he'd turn over the ball a lot, struggle shooting, and generally not be in the place he's supposed to be. Every rookie has that problem, and teams suffer through that if the price is worth it for the development of the player. But if the player is not projected to be that good, it's not worth it to put a guy out there who's helping you lose the game.

The Spurs, to follow your example, played Kawhi 24 minutes a game in his rookie year even though he was a net negative, for that reason. They were about 4 points-per-100-possessions better when Kawhi was sitting on the bench than when he was playing, but they knew he'd be a difference maker some day so they had to put him out there to learn. Wilcox is surely not gonna be a difference maker like him, so we risking the chance to contend for a wild long shot chance at him being a rotation player is stupid imo.

And if you're gonna give me again the "he shouldn't have drafted him then" argument, I'll remind you again that he was the 28th freakin pick, it's way more usual for that late a pick to be out of the league after his rookie contract than being a useful player.

[mattd13]

have to agree with Q. I am not that happy with doc either but with late pics it just luck. in todays world it is very hard. most of these guys have been watched since grade school. everyone knows about the good ones. I have an 8 year old grand son who high school coaches are already coming and watching him take batting and pitching lessons from a professional instructor. it is almost impossible to fly under the radar.

[Ranma]

The Spurs, to follow your example, played Kawhi 24 minutes a game in his rookie year even though he was a net negative, for that reason. They were about 4 points-per-100-possessions better when Kawhi was sitting on the bench than when he was playing, but they knew he'd be a difference maker some day so they had to put him out there to learn. Wilcox is surely not gonna be a difference maker like him, so we risking the chance to contend for a wild long shot chance at him being a rotation player is stupid imo.

And if you're gonna give me again the "he shouldn't have drafted him then" argument, I'll remind you again that he was the 28th freakin pick, it's way more usual for that late a pick to be out of the league after his rookie contract than being a useful player.

No, I don't hate Doc. In fact, there a lot of admirable things about him as a person. However, given the demands that he himself placed on himself, he should be held to a higher standard. I don't get why you keep buying into his excuses. I believe as a coach, he can get us a championship with our roster, but at the same time, he has been his own worst enemy in undermining that goal. Everyone has seen that just as you have acknowledged it.

Again, you miss the point of the Wilcox discussion. Yes, we had late-round picks to draft Bullock and Wilcox. Like I've repeatedly said, it's not the results but the approach. You cite the Spurs and Thunder previously missing on picks before but that is obvious. The difference is that they have a proven track record, which Doc is severely lacking. Excusing him for his lack of success just because he's only had two chances to draft prospects late in the 1st round because he's limited those chances by giving away picks totally misses the irony.

I've already cited the Spurs' success with Kawhi Leonard, but how about the Thunder's success with Serge Ibaka, who was also selected late in the 1st round? Heck, the guy who had the GM job before Doc dealt for Eric Bledsoe after he was drafted 18th overall in the 2010 NBA Draft before Doc subsequently dealt him in a deal where he ended up giving up another 1st-rounder in order to dump one of the key players he acquired (Jared Dudley).

As I mentioned before, he drafted both Wilcox and Bullock as supposedly more polished and older prospects who could have contributed in a 3-and-D role yet neither could find the time on the floor despite the void on the wings, particularly at small forward. Also again, you can't just look at playing Wilcox over Crawford in a vacuum. Crawford, as I said, makes his teammates worse by relegating them to spectator status. Playing Wilcox in his place has less to do with what Wilcox brings than removing the negative effect of Crawford. And I'm not even saying we give Wilcox the entirety of Crawford's minutes. How about some to keep Crawford in check whenever he goes hero ball?

I only need to point to the fact that we had the absolute worst bench in the league last season. One which was primarily responsible for one of the biggest choke jobs in the history of sports. What more do you need to be convinced? Yes, Wilcox has limited upside but there is at least some hope for improvement. Playing him last season couldn't possibly have hurt us any more when the bench was already an absolute abomination.

Again, like I also said, Doc's ineptitude extends beyond draft picks. His free agent signings have been disastrous as well not counting this season. Most people realize defense is about effort yet we still have been in the middle of the pack. It takes less talent and more character role players, which should not be all that hard to find relative to finding offensively talented players. We didn't need that much from the bench, just enough to wear down our opponents in not making it easy for them to score and blow the leads the starting lineup built up.

Doc likes to preach team and no excuses, but whenever it's inconvenient for him, he'll deflect responsibility and even went so far as to go on the record as claiming that he stepped into a difficult situation with the contract commitments. Hello?! He inherited Blake Griffin, Chris Paul, DeAndre Jordan, and Eric Bledsoe and he has the audacity to imply that he's in a bad situation, especially after he high-tailed it from Boston, whose replacement coach is actually doing a better job of building a team with the sparse assets he was given?

Doc is responsible for our success and failures and we have failed in improving from our ultimate goal. In fact, we haven't done much better in the postseason than we have under Vinny Del Negro and we certainly have done much worse in player transactions under his watch than when Neil Olshey had the job. I don't get why you don't see that. All I'm doing is holding him accountable for the very responsibilities he demanded to take on. If he can't handle the job, step down. If he won't, then he is definitely fair game to be targeted with criticism. It's as simple as that.

Don't pee on me and tell me it's raining. (<--directed at Doc)

[Ranma]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/BA_Turner/status/659181150112342016[/tweet]

[Ranma]

Well, the Suns did trade for Bullock in the Austin Rivers deal, but the next deal I want made is trading away Jamal Crawford. The sooner that happens, the sooner we can get to productive work.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DanWoikeSports/status/662419135620472832[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/662419783632207872[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BobbyMarks42/status/662423864408961024[/tweet]

[Wammy Giveaway]

Well, the Suns did trade for Bullock in the Austin Rivers deal, but the next deal I want made is trading away Jamal Crawford. The sooner that happens, the sooner we can get to productive work.

I'm weary of this latest move. What if the Suns (or another team) asks Doc to give up a draft pick, again? Jamal Crawford's trade value is very unimpressive. Nobody's going to want him now unless a pick is offered.

If he does it again - three years in a row - Doc will officially be called a lost GM.

[Akklaim1]

What's with that tweet? I thought we had a D-League affiliate?