Jared Dudley & Other Player Targets for Clippers 2013-14

Clippers TopBuzz Forum/Message Board » Clipper Blogs
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Search This Topic:
 
Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4045
votes: 37
  

Dudley in terms of overall value is the best. Afflalo is overpaid for his talent and production, Mayo is okay, but not as good as people seem to think he is. Dudley hits the sweet spot of just a bit above role player, and an effective two way player who brings 3/D, but he's not a SG. He's best at SF.

Toney Douglas is actually a nice 3/D PG that wouldn't be a bad fit for this team.

Tony Allen is a good choice, but my thoughts on him are that while he's more versatile than Bledsoe defensively as he can guard 1/2/3, and Bledsoe, 1, and 2, you're forfeiting offense and 3PT shooting with him, so why not just start Bledsoe at SG if you want to go pick up Tony Allen? He certainly isn't spreading the floor, and Bledsoe is a better shooter (not saying much) while also a high impact defender.

Martell Webster should be on the SF list, not the SG list. Problem of course is that there is not THAT much flexibility in terms of signing players, basically you sign one player for the whole MLE, or do a $2M/$3M split, or $2.5M/$2.5M, or $1.5M/$3.5M split amongst two players. You then have to question if the upgrade of for an example a guy making $2M - $2.5M is worth if over some guys that you could pay the veteran's minimum to.

If Bledsoe is traded, I would say:

PG - Get a minimum player

Sebastian Telfair, E'Twaun Moore?, John Lucas III, Earl Watson, Malik Wayns, Shaun Livingston?, C.J. Watson?

SG - Don't force it trying to get one

$4M: O.J. Mayo (he'll get the full MLE, so this won't get him)

$3M: Tony Allen

Minimum Attempts: Anthony Morrow, Keith Bogans, James Anderson? (if option not pick up)

SF - Go big if possible, it not, there are options

Full MLE: Paul Pierce

$3M: Martell Webster, Carlos Delfino

$2M: Matt Barnes, Mike Dunleavy

$1.25M: Al-Farouq Aminu (or minimum is possible)

Minimum Attempts: Ronnie Brewer, Chase Budinger, waived Hedo Turkoglu?

Big man:

Full MLE: None

$3M: Zaza Pachulia

$2.5M: Elton Brand, Jermaine O'neal

$2M: Earl Clark, Jason Smith (if option not picked up)

Minimum Attempts: Nazr Mohammed

Those are more variable than this implies, but that's kind of what you would be looking at. It's basically a pick two that adds up to about $5M out of the non minimum possible guys, or just go with one and use minimums.

CLIPSET
Clipper Starter
Posts: 545
votes: 0

Those players that you list as better can't and haven't delivered titles. Triple double not a threat?? That sounds silly. Sometimes the eye test means more than just the numbers. He doesn't need to score a lot of points yet he still averages double figures in points. I'd rather have my point guard run the team , distribute the rock, play defense, crash the boards and get 10 pts a game than score 18 pts. You don't think his defense is good even though he's always 1 or 2 in steals?

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4045
votes: 37

Rondo delivered a title? So what about Parker who has won and has a finals MVP, what did he do?

And when you say Rondo "delivered" it, what do you mean, he was the, or a main cog? He wasn't and it's just like saying Mario Chalmers delivered a title. He delivered a title as much as you could say Perkins did in a comparison to Dwight Howard, it's a useless mention. It's only important if you believe other PG's in the same situation would have failed to produce enough for Boston to win. As if you stick Paul on that team and they don't have two or three title instead or just one.

What exactly is the point of comparing totally different situations? What point is made in telling us that a PG can win a title with prime Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and KG, but not with Andei Kirolenko, Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur, or Peja Stojakovic, David West and Tyson Chandler? He won a title as the 4th best player behind KG, Pierce and Allen, and that's at best 4th best player.

He averaged 10/4/7/.454 TS% in the post season when they won a title.

In the conference finals and finals he averaged

9.3 / 4.1 / 6.6 / 36.2% FG / .414 TS%

Yea, he really "delivered" that title on a platter.

Rondo is a great example of a player who is overrated because of team success and his playoff impact is a bit overstated because of playing with an elite defense. I say this because without the defense holding down the opponent, Rondo has never single handedly produced enough on offense to win a series for his team just on offense. Paul for example has done so and still lost because his team defended even worse that his offensive production could boost the offense. He did it this year, vs the Lakers and in 07-08 though the Hornets were also a good defense in 07-08.

Last year against Miami was the closest thing for Rondo, but even then, outside of the impressive stamina, 20.9 pts / 11.3 assists / 17.9 FGA / .528 TS% / 109 Ortg in 45.2 minutes, is quite good, but many players have done much better offensively and lost to weaker teams because their team wasn't holding opponents to 98.2 pts/100 possessions during the season while boasting the #1 defense in the league.

It's interesting how people still don't grasp the value of an elite defense. It's why I wanted a coach like JVG or Malone, and a trade for KG even though he's old. Elite defense means that the Clippers 107 Ortg vs Memphis would have been MORE than enough offense packaged with an elite defense to get them into the finals THIS year.

The problem with your comparison is that you're making total points be the same as shots taken and neglecting that on a team without two to three higher options, other PG's don't get the luxury of just passing and scoring only 10 pts.

Playoffs:

10-11 Paul: 12.8 FGA / 8.2 FTA (~4.1 FG) / 22.0 pts (~16.9 attempts)

11-12 Paul: 14.9 FGA / 4.3 FTA (~2.2 FG) / 17.6 pts (~16.1 attempts)

12-13 Paul: 15.3 FGA / 6.2 FTA (~3.1 FG) / 22.8 pts (~18.4 attempts)

08-09 Rondo: 15.9 FGA / 4.8 FTA (~2.4 FGA) / 16.9 pts (~18.3 attempts)

11-12 Rondo: 15.8 FGA / 2.9 FTA (~1.5 FGA) / 17.3 pts (~17.3 attempts)

Now Rondo plays more minutes, so per 36 would have been better, but the point still stands. You're wrongly interpreting Rondo's lower playoff scoring as "Rondo is trying to run the offense more" so he doesn't shoot or score as much as a Paul, Curry or Deron (the more efficient guys). When the reality is that he shoots just as much, he just doesn't make as many shots or score as many points with the same attempts.

Also with all his assisting, Celtics Ortg since Rondo has carried a bigger load hasn't necessarily increased:

12-13:

With Rondo: 100.9 Ortg

Without Rondo: 104.6 Ortg

With Rondo: .494 eFG%

Without Rondo: .509 eFG%

With Rondo: 15.2% TOV

Without Rondo: 15.8% TOV

11-12: 27th in Ortg, 10th eFG, 25th in TOV%

10-11: 18th in Ortg, 7th in eFG, 28th in TOV%

09-10: 15th in Ortg, 5th in eFG, 27th in TOV%

The overall Ortg is hurt because they don't crash the glass offensively and are a weak offensive rebounding team.

Rondo has his value, but he's not a great offensive PG because his own scoring is inefficient and he doesn't keep team turnovers down. On most teams, you don't want your PG to be shooting all the time like Westbrook, but you want him to be efficient if he's a lower option. Rondo also doesn't help space the floor, but Boston survives with big man spacers, a team like LAC would die. He get's a lot of assists, and is a very good passer, but it doesn't have specific correlation with their offense being more effective.

Commentators and his teammates made note of greater ball movement without him benefitting them, and honestly the greater reason is that Rondo dominates the ball and finds guys, which isn't necessarily bad, but when he scores himself, it's not efficient and that isn't beneficial to the team offensively. That's in comparison to Nash or Paul who dominate the ball, find guys, score very efficiently on their own, AND, something people neglect, suppress the teams turnovers by dominating the ball. Like previously mentioned, Rondo is a high turnover PG even relative to his assists and doesn't hold back team turnovers as the Celtics have been awful there the past few seasons.

Now, the bigger issues is that without him this season, the team was essentially the same on offense. A minimal 0.6% increase in TOV% which you would expect more without a solid PG. eFG% increased because while Rondo could find players, his own personal scoring was inefficient, so it didn't have an overall positive effect on that. This helps us also see that their high eFG% in previous seasons was not just due to what he was doing as a passer as people would like to narrate it, but the talents of the team on its own.

Defense:

Steals don't indicate good defense. Rondo is a good defender, has been less consistent in that and doing more matador in recent years, but PG's are not defensive anchors. The Celtics defense is #1 because of KG and the coaching / system, not Rondo. That's why their defense didn't drop without Rondo, not because he's bad but because he's a PG and can't have the same impact on defense as a big man or a big versatile wing player.

EG: Rose doesn't get 1-2 steals, Bulls had a great defensive system and players, he was part of the #1 ranked defense in the league. Parker is no special defender and was past of great defensive Spurs teams anchored by Duncan. James Nelson was part of very good Orlando defenses. Mario Chalmers was part of a 6th ranked Miami defense in 09-10 (before Lebron and Bosh), and their 5th and 4th ranked defense the two seasons after. It's not the guards that spear head a great defense, it is bigs/versatile wings, and coaches.

Triple Double

Again, triple double is a great counting stat, it doesn't imply a player being better than another, I have no clue where people got this idea that it does. It implies a productive all-round game, but again, inefficient scoring, low scoring volume, great passing, below average shooting, good rebounding, and a high rebounding game once in a while doesn't make a player better than other.

Also not all triple doubles are made equal. A 30/12/11 triple double is very different from 12/10/10, and Paul has 11 triple doubles himself in comparison to Rondo's 17, not that it matters, but it's not like he lacks versatility. You won't to argue for a player based on a difference in 6 career games....

Paul averages 4.4 Rebs, 4.3 per 36 to Rondo's 4.5 rebs, 5.0 per 36 for his career. He averages 21/5/10 in the playoffs to Rondo's 15/6/9 (16/7/10 if you subtract his first playoffs). Per 36, Paul 19/5/9, Rondo without first playoffs 14/6/9. Honestly, you're arguing for a player being better because of 0.7 rebounds every 36 minutes.

Lamar Odom is more versatile than Duncan, he has 12 career triple doubles, but versatility is only an asset in comparison when the core is there. Odom is nowhere close to Duncan. A 15/9/5 player that can get triple doubles isn't better then a 20/11/3 player that gets on once in a while (if there's no large margin in some other aspect, ie, if the 15/9/5 guy isn't a DPOY, while the other is terrible on defense)

A player that scores more AND more efficiently in the flow of the offense while spreading the floor better, contributes positively to defense, is just as good or as effective of a playmaker, because good playmaking and running of an offense isn't indicated by total APG. That player is better.

Supphector17
Clipper 6th Man
Posts: 200
votes: 1

Where the heck u get this stuff haha^^

CLIPSET
Clipper Starter
Posts: 545
votes: 0

^^ LOL roll

Like I said in my previous post Tony Parker/ Rajon Rondo are 1A/1B.

Stop with all the stats John Hollinger. Your points are all useless. Rondo/Parker are champions. CP3 is not. It is what it is. You can argue numbers and stats with me when CP3 gets through a conference finals. To suggest Rondo is inferior to Paul is comical.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4045
votes: 37

You also said "Those players that you list as better can't and haven't delivered titles" and one of "those" players I listed was Parker.

Let's ignore the fact that I'm using both the statistics and observation and just say "ignore the stats" because there is actually no real argument for Rondo being the best PG except for "look at how his team did".

...and that's exactly your problem you're still trying to argue that Rondo is better than others based on him winning a championship as a role player and the 4th best player on his team.

By this logic, there were a ton of players better than KG until 03-04, I mean "Kenyon Martin went to the finals two years in a row", what was KG doing, losing in the first round. Conclusion, Kenyon was the second best PF after Duncan who also went to the finals. He led the #1 defense, carried them offensively and as an emotional leader. Do you think that is solid logic? I mean if you do, then that's okay, and there's no point discussing / debating anything.

Now, what would be nice would be for you to address the points about the Celtics defense as the main reason. Their offense not declining, actually improving without Rondo, the fact that his own scoring doesn't actually improve an offense altogether, the fact that he's a spacing nightmare, the fact that his rebounding and "triple double threat" is far from something significant in the comparison you were making, especially to Paup who has 5 or 6 less triple doubles and averages 0.7 less rebounds per 36.

Address those issues, it would make this a much more interesting conversation and excerxcise in understanding and analyzing what's going on outside of just "this team won, this team lost, the end."


Supphector, there are many resources available, and I try to watch games without thinking "rjejwj final statistical output!!!". I don't just line up pts/rebs/assists, check out which team won and then say the biggest impact player was who,ever collected the best line. I also don't just look at pts scored at the end of the game. I like to see how those points are coming, what other value the players style brings, how beneficial his scoring is, because while pts are pts, not all individual scoring is made equal. 30 pts on 20 shots is very different from 30 pts on 30 shots.

If two teams take 80 FGA

I score 30 pts on 28 shots (1.07 pts/shot) and the rest of my team scores 53 pts on 52 shots (1.02 pts/shot), we end up with 83 pts, and people are like he scored 30! The opposition sores 79 pts because our defense is insane, we win. Praise goes to me for carrying the team with my 30 pts, which I partly did.

Another guy scores 22 pts on 17 shots (1.29 pts/shot), and the rest of his team scores 64 pts on 63 shots (1.02 pts/shot), we end up with 86 pts. Our defense is kinda meh, so the opposition scores 90 pts. We loose the game and the casual observe says "he should have put his team on his back", "why didn't he just shoot more and carry the offense". "It doesn't matter if he took 30 shots, if he scored 30 they would have had a chance".

This also doesn't take into account turnovers and possession usage. if I'm a lower turnover guy, the advantage increases. A lot of people don't actually realize that scoring more on lower efficiency while his team plays the same as the other guys team would actually produce a WORSE offense. That's why Kevin Durant vs the Grizzlies, even though he put up 28.8 pts, it took him 22.8 shots, and his team produced a terrible and far inferior offense to the Clippers who had Paul producing 22.8 pts on 15.3 shots.

If you can score efficiently and then create plays or draw attention that allows your team to produce effectively enough, you create a better team offense than someone who scores a lot more, but inefficiently and also draws draws defenders. Not to mention the other issues that come with one player shooting so much consistently like the teammates not getting in the flow, maybe not putting as much energy defensively (though certain coaching can fix that).

This is also what differentiated guys like Jordan, Kobe in his good playoff years, Lebron, etc. They scored a lot of points, but did it efficiently, but they are also top 10-15, All-Time level players, so...

tense2
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8771
votes: 20

Actually with that logic, Derek Fisher is better than all of them.

namzug
Clipper All-Star
 Avatar
Posts: 1043
Location: So Cal
votes: 10

I have to agree with agent 0. If you want to go just on the visual do you really think that rondo could elevate the clippers the chris paul did, and literally carry the team for extended periods. I also believe that if chris paul was on those celtic teams they probably would of won another one or two titles.

I actually like rondo's game, and am not the biggest parker fan, but there are only a few players that can carry a team. Of all those players none of them seem to be lacking on the offensive side of the ball. Iggy is a great player, and if he had the offensive game to balance his game out he would be a superstar.

Speaking about efficiency I have to side with agent 0 as well. I think this is an easy subject if you look at it objectively.

Agent 0 turned me around on speights due to the efficiency matters topic. Once I really looked at Speights and his history, he really seems to settle for his jumper to much. This is not what I really want out of our big men unless we have dirk. Don't get me wrong I want someone who can hit an open 15 footer or further than 5 feet, but I don't want that to be their bread and butter. I coach my son's youth basketball team and always am preaching to go for the high percentage shot, get the lay up if you can or an easy bank shot if you got the angle, why wouldn't you want the same thing out of all your basketball players.

I know I got off subject there, but my point while no one is saying that rondo is not a good pg he is not on the same level as paul or some of the other guys mentioned. I believe that Williams is a stat guy and really doesn't have the same push as some of those other guys, and I believe that parker wouldn't be the same without the environment he got blessed with (Duncan and popovich coaching); but the argument could easily be made that they are closer than rondo.

CLIPSET
Clipper Starter
Posts: 545
votes: 0

tense2 wrote:
CLIPSET wrote:
^^ LOL roll

Like I said in my previous post Tony Parker/ Rajon Rondo are 1A/1B.

Stop with all the stats John Hollinger. Your points are all useless. Rondo/Parker are champions. CP3 is not. It is what it is. You can argue numbers and stats with me when CP3 gets through a conference finals. To suggest Rondo is inferior to Paul is comical.

Actually with that logic, Derek Fisher is better than all of them.

Not really because Fish played in the triangle.

AirGriffin
Clipper Starter
Posts: 569
votes: 4

tense2 wrote:
CLIPSET wrote:
^^ LOL roll

Like I said in my previous post Tony Parker/ Rajon Rondo are 1A/1B.

Stop with all the stats John Hollinger. Your points are all useless. Rondo/Parker are champions. CP3 is not. It is what it is. You can argue numbers and stats with me when CP3 gets through a conference finals. To suggest Rondo is inferior to Paul is comical.

Actually with that logic, Derek Fisher is better than all of them.

Exactly, Cahlmers is condisidered a champion twice so he MUST be better than Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, etc. lmfao I hate that logic and argument!

CLIPSET
Clipper Starter
Posts: 545
votes: 0

AirGriffin wrote:
tense2 wrote:
CLIPSET wrote:
^^ LOL roll

Like I said in my previous post Tony Parker/ Rajon Rondo are 1A/1B.

Stop with all the stats John Hollinger. Your points are all useless. Rondo/Parker are champions. CP3 is not. It is what it is. You can argue numbers and stats with me when CP3 gets through a conference finals. To suggest Rondo is inferior to Paul is comical.

Actually with that logic, Derek Fisher is better than all of them.

Exactly, Cahlmers is condisidered a champion twice so he MUST be better than Chris Paul, Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, etc. lmfao I hate that logic and argument!

Chalmers doesn't handle point guard duties, he just plays the position. The ball is in Lebron's hand. Same with Kobe.

Dallas didn't win the title til Jason Kidd got there and ran the point.

PG don't need to be scorers.

tense2
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 8771
votes: 20

CLIPSET wrote:
tense2 wrote:
CLIPSET wrote:
^^ LOL roll

Like I said in my previous post Tony Parker/ Rajon Rondo are 1A/1B.

Stop with all the stats John Hollinger. Your points are all useless. Rondo/Parker are champions. CP3 is not. It is what it is. You can argue numbers and stats with me when CP3 gets through a conference finals. To suggest Rondo is inferior to Paul is comical.

Actually with that logic, Derek Fisher is better than all of them.

Not really because Fish played in the triangle.

Yep and that's my point. Can't compare teams/systems success when looking at individual success/stats to see who is more productive or the better player.

When comparing the individual numbers both basic and advanced, Paul has the better overall numbers.

Agent0
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4045
votes: 37

namzug wrote:
I have to agree with agent 0. If you want to go just on the visual do you really think that rondo could elevate the clippers the chris paul did, and literally carry the team for extended periods. I also believe that if chris paul was on those celtic teams they probably would of won another one or two titles.

I actually like rondo's game, and am not the biggest parker fan, but there are only a few players that can carry a team. Of all those players none of them seem to be lacking on the offensive side of the ball. Iggy is a great player, and if he had the offensive game to balance his game out he would be a superstar.

Speaking about efficiency I have to side with agent 0 as well. I think this is an easy subject if you look at it objectively.

Agent 0 turned me around on speights due to the efficiency matters topic. Once I really looked at Speights and his history, he really seems to settle for his jumper to much. This is not what I really want out of our big men unless we have dirk. Don't get me wrong I want someone who can hit an open 15 footer or further than 5 feet, but I don't want that to be their bread and butter. I coach my son's youth basketball team and always am preaching to go for the high percentage shot, get the lay up if you can or an easy bank shot if you got the angle, why wouldn't you want the same thing out of all your basketball players.

I know I got off subject there, but my point while no one is saying that rondo is not a good pg he is not on the same level as paul or some of the other guys mentioned. I believe that Williams is a stat guy and really doesn't have the same push as some of those other guys, and I believe that parker wouldn't be the same without the environment he got blessed with (Duncan and popovich coaching); but the argument could easily be made that they are closer than rondo.

Exactly, I think it is the word "overrated", people seem to interpret that as bad. No! Overrated doesn't mean bad! Rondo is a very good player, but he's not a superstar, he's not a franchise player, he has some big flaws that can be hidden on a good team, but not on others, and he has the luxury of playing next to other guys that carry the scoring load.

He is overrated when people play out a scenario where he's carrying a bunch of old Celtics and is the main factor in them winning games. The reality is that KG was their defensive anchor, AND leading scorer and most consistent performer in the post-season last year for example. Rondo initiates, creates, scores a little, defends well most of the time, but his impact just doesn't reach KG's two way impact.

Determining who is better just by which team has more success makes no sense. It implies that you are comparing apples to apples, when you're not, it's not logical at all.

Year before Boston:

31 year old Ray Allen: 24/4/4

29 year old Paul Pierce: 25/6/4

30 year old Kevin Garnett: 21/12/4

Go find the equivalent of those players in the league today, stick Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Stephen Curry, etc at PG and see how much winning happens. First of all you can't even really find that kind of combination of players that fit so well and can all shoot which is a PG's dream. SG that comes off screens, pick and pop / pick and roll big that you can throw lobs to, SF that can spot up and you can iso when you need baskets. What players in the league can fill those roles? You could make a sort of similar version...

Point Guard: - / - / - /

James Harden: 26/5/6

Paul George: 17/8/4

LaMarcus Aldridge: 21/9/3

Joakhim Noah: 12/11/4

That's something like what the Celtics team was, you just can't replicate them, there's no other Ray Allen around, George can score, but not like Pierce, but his defense is better. Aldridge is your KG because he's athletic and can shoot and post, but he doesn't have the defense or passing, so instead of Perkins, you have Noah to make up the deficiencies of Aldridge in comparison to KG. Maybe it's lost how good a team that was to put together in their early 30's. You could stick Mario Chalmers in there and be a great team.

If Paul was playing with those guys and he could never get over "the hump" and win, blast him all day, but saying he's worse than a guy because the guy who won as the 4th best player in a similar team while producing mediocre and poorly in the Conference Finals and Finals just has no logic to it.

Quote:

Chalmers doesn't handle point guard duties, he just plays the position. The ball is in Lebron's hand. Same with Kobe.

Dallas didn't win the title til Jason Kidd got there and ran the point.

PG don't need to be scorers.

There's no hard and fast rule about whether a PG should score or not, and we already determined that Rondo shoots as much or more than Paul in the post-season, he just doesn't make as many shots, and technically hurts the offense with his shooting. The need or lack theroef of PG scoring is team and individual talent dependent.

PG's not needing to be scorers contradicts your argument that excludes Chalmers as a PG. You are correct in saying that Lebron is essentially the PG, but guess what? He's a scorer, yea, he isn't labelled "PG", but he plays the primary playmaker role on offense. Your primary playmaker can be a scorer, as long as they are good and efficient with it and as long as they get others involved. Kobe was a primary initiator and consistently went away from the triangle and didn't always pass, but he was a good enough scorer.

Jason Kidd also got to the finals scoring 19.6 and 20.1 PPG (yea, yea, he was not the most efficient scorer, but look at the opponents) in 01-02 and 02-03 on the back of an elite defense and yea, in a weak East, but still. He needed to score because of team makeup, so again, PG's might need to be scorers. On Dallas he was a role player and you again argue against yourself and add to the previous point, so was Kidd the best PG in the league in 10-11 because Dallas won? He played basically the exact same role Rondo did in 07-08 except he was better and was a floor spacer.

Chris Paul can't "not score" on a team with one other scorer in the starting lineup and that scorer has no reliable jumpshot. Chris Paul wasn't going to facilitate his way to any better playoff outcomes, so what's the point of mentioning that as if it is a hindrance to his success. Rondo could choose not score on a team that brought in three players who were averaging 20-21+ PPG before coming to the team. Now that he has to score more in the post-season, the offense is yuck.

Again, if you don't put context into things, how can we even have discussion?

I'm fine with accepting your Rondo best PG because of a championship as 4th best player argument as long as you're willing to tell me that until 07-08, you also believed that Kenyon Martin, 2 time NBA Finalist was better than KG who had never gotten past a Conference Finals; because of course being in the East or West, the talent of your teammates, and being the best player vs a secondary or even role player don't matter, just the end result, right? I wouldn't mind if you added Brand, Webber, Amare, and Jermaine O'neal to the list of guys Kenyon is better than. Maybe Dirk too because Kenyon had 2 Finals appearances vs 1 for Dirk at that time.

This is just so I at least know you are consistent with your argument.

Quote:

I wouldn't want Haywood is take brandan wright over him? Unless Dallas resigns him as there backup center

Brandan Wright is more of a PF than a C, but he's a very productive player in his minutes, still only 25, doesn't foul a lot or turn it over. Seems like the kind of player Dallas would want to keep, or at least should want to keep.

Go To the Top of the ThreadGo Home

or Comment Using FB

Post new topic   Reply to topic


← It's a False Idea that Pace and Defense Can't Mesh

→ Which Clipper Will be Guarding LeBron James?

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

register
You are an anonymous user- Register now!


Follow our Los Angeles Clippers RSS Feed, plus the Clippers Rumors RSS Feed, the LA Clippers News RSS feed, and the Clippers Forum RSS feed to get the newest updated Clippers News and Trade Rumors plus Clippers Game update in your RSS/XML reader!