Nets, Clippers Interested in Mark Jackson?

Clippers TopBuzz Forum/Message Board » Clipper Rumors
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Search This Topic:
 
rick0314
Clipper All-Star
Posts: 1571

mx.gif
votes: 5
Nets, Clippers Interested in Mark Jackson? CBS Sports speculates that both the Clips and Nets may want “Action” Jackson to join their coaching ranks: “Mark Jackson’s decision to sign with an agent this week has not gone unnoticed in coaching circles, where it is believed that the former All-Star point guard and current broadcaster finally will get his chance to roam the sidelines as an NBA head coach. Jackson did not employ an agent when he was in the running for head coaching jobs in New York and Minnesota last summer and Phoenix in 2008, preferring to deal one-on-one with team....

Please log in to view the entire post.

mj_shoefanatic
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 2548
Location: Lob Angeles™
calif.gif
votes: 7

I'd gladly welcome this former clipper to the coaching staff.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15881
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

^^ Yup, me too. I swear, this guy is probably one of the only guys that gives us respect. Saw the game against the Bucks on ESPN and could get over how respectful he is and how much he knows about this team. I don't well he will do as coach but I'd welcome him with open arms.

Too bad this article is nothing but speculation...their words, not mine.

ekker3
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 7257
votes: 80

being that we're making so many drastic changes this year, there's NO WAY i support bringing in a coach with no experience. i want someone with a proven history.

ClipfanSince88
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 3349
votes: 21

^^^ I hear what you're saying, Ekker, but a lot of the guys out there with NBA experience are just mediocre coaches. I'd almost prefer giving someone their shot than bring on another retread, as we've done repeatedly throughout the team's history. Going with guys like Bill Fitch, Dunleavy, Chris Ford, etc. over and over hasn't gotten us very far, so I wouldn't mind the team going in a different direction this time. From what I hear, Mark Jackson was really close to getting the Minnesota job last year. He's probably qualified. I'd take a chance on him.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15881
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

Beat me to it. Expressed my sentiments to a tee.

I would have agreed with Ekker pre-dun firing but I don't think experience is going to be the game-changer ( no pun intended) next season.

ekker3
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 7257
votes: 80

  1. he's probably saying nice things to get his foot in the coaching door

  2. we dont deserve respect

SamMays
CTB MVP X1
Posts: 4020
votes: 53

Jackson being a new coach, we don't know what his offensive system would be, what his defensive system would be and how he'd relate to his players... And working with Baron Davis? That's an awful lot of taking a chance on someone...

ekker3
CTB MVP X2
Posts: 7257
votes: 80

hey man, bill fitch was one of the best coaches in nba history. can't do much with pooh richardson, terry dehere, lamond murray, loy vaught, and elmore spencer.

and that's part of the reason i wasnt a big supporter of dunleavy's firing. i think we can all agree that the players arent doing their thing. there wasnt anyone available out there that i considered to be a "better" coach than dun.

clipper*joe
CTB MVP Champion
Posts: 15881
Location: los angeles
calif.gif
votes: 125

ekker3 wrote:
clipper*joe wrote:
^^ Yup, me too. I swear, this guy is probably one of the only guys that gives us respect. Saw the game against the Bucks on ESPN and could get over how respectful he is and how much he knows about this team. I don't well he will do as coach but I'd welcome him with open arms.

Too bad this article is nothing but speculation...their words, not mine.

  1. he's probably saying nice things to get his foot in the coaching door

  2. we dont deserve respect

  1. Good for him, much rather have a coach that wants to be here than a coach coming here as a last resort.
  • Which is why it is a breath of fresh air that in spite of that, he still does.

    Also, he is probably the only one aside fro Lawler that knows what he is talking about when it comes to this team.

  • clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    Well , couldn't you say the same thing about any coach coming here? And does everything have to end up with a Baron statement?

    Your obsession is relentless.

    rick0314
    Clipper All-Star
    Posts: 1571

    mx.gif
    votes: 5

    ekker3 wrote:
    clipper*joe wrote:
    ^^ Yup, me too. I swear, this guy is probably one of the only guys that gives us respect. Saw the game against the Bucks on ESPN and could get over how respectful he is and how much he knows about this team. I don't well he will do as coach but I'd welcome him with open arms.

    Too bad this article is nothing but speculation...their words, not mine.

    1. he's probably saying nice things to get his foot in the coaching door

    2. we dont deserve respect

    Acutually, i remember it was another ESPN game, not sure which opponent, but we were up by 16 points and they started to catch up, and he was saying about Dun "i dont understand why dunleavy waits so long to reenter his starting line up, he waited too long that the lead has been cut to 6, if it was me would have entered the starting five sooner" not word for word but i stricy remember him saying that

    we need a fresh start, i would like him

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    Quote:

    Jackson being a new coach, we don't know what his offensive system would be, what his defensive system would be and how he'd relate to his players... And working with Baron Davis? That's an awful lot of taking a chance on someone...

    Well , couldn't you say the same thing about any coach coming here?

    No, I wouldn't say that with any coach coming in here. Veteran coaches command a certain degree of respect and have the experience to know how they want to work with players... They will also have the experience to know how they want to run a team and who the best assistants would be to accomplish what they want to accomplish and would have a better chance of getting said assistants. Experience means a lot in any profession, NBA coaching being no exception.

    That said, all the best coaches were rookies at one point and some of these guys do succeed. However, rookie coaches in the NBA are more likely to flame out in very big ways... Mike Montgomery and Quinn Buckner being examples. Hard to imagine a veteran NBA coach going down the tubes as brutally as those two guys did...

    I'm not saying Jackson is doomed to fail. He might be hugely successful. Who knows? He was a great player, but so was Magic Johnson, who was another rookie coach who flamed out...

    I think the time to bring in a new (rookie) coach, say a Sam Cassell, would have been right after Dunleavy left. He could have had a year and a half to prove his mettle at a modest price and modest risk, given that this season was over anyway...

    Quote:

    And does everything have to end up with a Baron statement? Your obsession is relentless.

    Yes, and thank you.

    ClipfanSince88
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 3349
    votes: 21

    clipper*joe wrote:
    SamMays wrote:
    Jackson being a new coach, we don't know what his offensive system would be, what his defensive system would be and how he'd relate to his players... And working with Baron Davis? That's an awful lot of taking a chance on someone...

    Well , couldn't you say the same thing about any coach coming here? And does everything have to end up with a Baron statement?

    Your obsession is relentless.

    I agree, Joe. No matter who we bring in, whether we know what his system is going to be or not, we're still taking a chance that the system will work for the players on our roster and that the coach will relate to those players. All of the guys out there with experience have had times when their systems worked and their players responded, and times when that didn't happen. If it were otherwise, those coaches wouldn't be available now.

    And Jackson, as a former PG who's not been out of the league that long, has a good a shot of relating to Baron as anyone. Probably better than some, like Byron Scott or Jeff VanGundy.

    I just don't see the hiring of an untested coach as being that much more of a gamble than hiring someone who's been around but has failed elsewhere.

    journeyman
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 3835
    Location: Los Angeles
    votes: 40

    Dear Clippers: Please hire a respected veteran coach that isn't past his prime. Thanks.

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    ^^^ Why not hire someone who's been around, but succeeded elsewhere? It's hard to call Byron Scott or Van Gundy a failure as a head coach.

    Rick Adelmann got fired from Sacramento. Was he a failure?

    I think hiring a rookie coach is much more risky than hiring someone who's done the job before... Byron Scott would be a better, safer choice in my opinion.

    And Baron sucks. Smile

    clippersfan85
    Clipper Starter
    Posts: 859

    calif.gif
    votes: 2

    We need a well respected veteran coach. I hope we can snag Byron Scott and get it done before the Phil Jackson decides to retire if the Lakers lose the championship. I don't think Mark Jackson would be a bad choice i just think this organization needs the credibility of a veteran coach not named Dunleavy.

    I also think Jeff Van Gundy or Avery Johnson would be good also. I think the guys would perform well with an Avery Johnson type coach that really isnt a players coach but pushes the team to get results.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
     Avatar
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125
    Jackson being a new coach, we don't know what his offensive system would be, what his defensive system would be and how he'd relate to his players... And working with Baron Davis? That's an awful lot of taking a chance on someone...
    Well , couldn't you say the same thing about any coach coming here? And does everything have to end up with a Baron statement? Your obsession is relentless. I agree, Joe. No matter who we bring in, whether we know what his system is going to be or not, we're still taking a chance that the system will work for....

    Please log in to view the entire post.

    rick0314
    Clipper All-Star
    Posts: 1571

    mx.gif
    votes: 5

    Wait, wasnt mark jackson an assistant coach for one year in Indiana?

    ClipfanSince88
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 3349
    votes: 21

    Failure was probably too strong a word. I think all those guys are decent coaches, but not great -- though I do think Adelman's doing a great job in Houston. I think Van Gundy is pretty much in the same class as Dunleavy. I never liked the way his teams played, whether New York or Houston. Very methodical, boring offenses. I'd pass on him. I wouldn't object to Scott getting the job, but I still think Jackson deserves to at least be interviewed.

    Something to think about -- why is Byron Scott a respected, veteran head coach now? Because the Nets took a chance on him when he didn't have much coaching experience. He had only spent a couple years with the Kings as a special assistant before he got the Nets job. That turned out fine. Mark Jackson is not in that different of a position.

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    ^^^ Absolutely... I'm not against Jackson, or saying he'll be terrible. He might be great... Just going with a rookie coach is more risky and is this a team that should take that risk given that we'll be fairly young with lots of new players...

    And, (this one is for you, Joe) we'll have that coach killer Baron on the squad.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    Good one. Now if you can get anything you've predicted right, I'll just laugh it off. Very Happy

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    ^^^ In December I predicted the Clippers would win 20 - 25 games despite the fact we already has won 12 games... Assuming another couple wins, not too bad... We had lots of guys here predicting playoffs and 40 wins even without Blake Griffin (foolish optimists).

    Also said, Randolph would never be a starting PF on a playoff team... Despite all the talent he has around him, I'm right again so far.

    Also accurately predicted the 2008 stock market crash, but that was on another forum.

    clipperstown
    CTB MVP X3
     Avatar
    Age: 20
    Posts: 11297
    Location: Glendale, CA
    am.gif
    votes: 24
    ^^ Yup, me too. I swear, this guy is probably one of the only guys that gives us respect. Saw the game against the Bucks on ESPN and could get over how respectful he is and how much he knows about this team. I don't well he will do as coach but I'd welcome him with open arms. Too bad this article is nothing but speculation...their words, not mine.
    he's probably saying nice things to get his foot in the coaching door we dont deserve respect Acutually, i remember it was another ESPN game, not sure which opponent, but we were up by 16....

    Please log in to view the entire post.

    Cliptonyte
    Clipper Starter
    Posts: 722
    Location: Cliptonyte
    votes: 4

    I usually agree with you Sam. I don't think going with another experienced sub .500 retread is the answer.

    Nearly all of the experienced winning coaches have jobs. I would probably consider Scott and Van Gundy a step up from Dunleavy, but how much better are they really? With a guy like Jackson, you might just have your next great NBA head coach. With the experienced retreads, you pretty much know what you are going to get.

    The games greatest head coaches were once assistants themselves, so I think that might be the best way to go. Of course Jackson isn't an experienced assistant, but he was a coach on the floor type of player. I think Jackson would need to be surrounded by at least one former experienced NBA head coach as an assistant...

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
     Avatar
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    Um, I was specifically talking about the players you dislike. You made a lot of assumptions and accusations about players that didn't hold water but came out of a pond of hate.

    Now, even a clock is right twice a day so maybe Randolph didn't get his new team to the play-offs but he did improve them and was rewarded by the NBA ( all-star). That group is young and so don't count him or Memphis out next season.

    And my sarcasm came from that comment you made Sam. Not only was it false, but it was an attempt to push a button.

    Baron is not a coach killer...due to him, Nellie had his best years in GS. Nellie is slowly killing himself without Baron. When he didn't see eye to eye with Byron, he was moved. When he came here, well, you know the story. People wanted him gone before Baron came here.

    Now, if you want to talk about players you wanted here, lets talk about Sessions and his highly overpaid contract. Guy is mediocre at best and compared dollar for dollar, Baron is still worth his contract more than Sessions is his.

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    Joe, I don't hate anybody... Randolph, according to most reports was well-liked by his teammates. I, of course, have never met him. I don't like his game, despite his talent. I think the holes in his defense take away much of what he gives a team offensively... But hey, for the first time in his career the guy worked his game in the off-season. Good for him... I still don't think he's worth his contract and that's what I think it's all about in this salary cap age.

    Same with Baron. I don't hate him. I'm not a fan of his game and I don't think he's worth his contract. Yes, Sessions is a mediocre PG... I would trade him heads up for Baron right now and have ten million a year to spend on someone else. Baron eats up 25% of our salary cap. He's not worth it, that's why I want him gone... That's why I don't want to give Rudy Gay a max deal. He's not worth a third of our salary cap. If Baron were on his rookie contract and making 2 or 3 million a year, with some upside, I'd be thrilled with him. But he's not. He's making 13-million a year with more downside than upside... The downside: deteriorating athleticism, stuborn, poor shooting, frequent weight issues, run ins with coaches, etc...

    Spending big money on players needs to bring wins... I advocate building through the draft, like Portland has done recently. If you get good young, cheap players, and they start to win, reward them and keep them together. Let them grow and improve together... We seem to be following the Portland model of six or seven years ago, bringing in expensive players in the hopes that you can buy your way to respectability, like lousy golfers try to buy a game with expensive clubs and a crappy swing.

    Baron and Randolph were like a hacker buying a Scotty Cameron putter for $300 and a $900 Mizuno driver and he still goes out on the course and shoots a 105. I think Baron and Randolph are two of the least wins for the buck guys in the league. They proved it together last year. Baron is proving it again this year... That Memphis team was going to get better anyway as the result of the growing maturity of Mayo, Gay and Conley and the dramatic improvement of Gasol. How much better has Randolph made them? Certainly, he's helped, but how much. I would argue that they would have been about where they are right now with a player like Gooden plugged into that spot.

    With me a players worth is a measure of his wins for the buck and not his stats, his likeability or anything else. Lebron at 16 million is worth three or more Baron Davis's.

    That's the point I keep trying to make that you seem to always miss.

    ToneE
    Clipper Starter
    Posts: 329
    votes: 1

    st. johns fired their coach Norm Roberts today and theyre also eyeing on mark jackson.

    journeyman
    CTB MVP X1
     Avatar
    Age: 30
    Posts: 3835
    Location: Los Angeles
    votes: 40

    Cliptonyte wrote:
    SamMays wrote:
    Jackson being a new coach, we don't know what his offensive system would be, what his defensive system would be and how he'd relate to his players... And working with Baron Davis? That's an awful lot of taking a chance on someone...

    I usually agree with you Sam. I don't think going with another experienced sub .500 retread is the answer.

    Fun fact: Mike Dunleavy's record was above .500 when he was first hired by Sterling in 2003.

    Quote:
    Nearly all of the experienced winning coaches have jobs. I would probably consider Scott and Van Gundy a step up from Dunleavy, but how much better are they really? With a guy like Jackson, you might just have your next great NBA head coach. With the experienced retreads, you pretty much know what you are going to get.

    Well... what's the other side of that equation? Jackson might be the next great coach. Or he could be Kim Hughes or John Lucas without the experience.

    Quote:
    I think Jackson would need to be surrounded by at least one former experienced NBA head coach as an assistant...

    Ideally, shouldn't it be reversed?

    Hooch20
    Clipper All-Star
    Posts: 2397
    Location: Santa Barbara
    calif.gif
    votes: 15

    How about Patrick Ewing since he's been an assistant for a few years? Maybe he could bring on Jackson as assistant... seeing as they played together for 5 years they might be good friends. Then we'd have a coach to work with our big guys and our guards.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
     Avatar
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    Sam, here is why I have a hard time taking some of the things you say serious. Rather than admit Zach has been the key to the Grizzlies success, you give everyone else the credit instead of admitting you were wrong.

    Here is my case as to why I think you are wrong, or rather ignoring the facts.

    1. Mayo and Gay were bumping heads this season,

    2. Memphis had no leader until Zach got there. Their announcers have reiterated that fact over and over.

    3. Memphis was 24-58 last season

    4. Memphis is 12 games better with a lot of games left.

    5. Rudy gay's numbers are almost identical (99.9 the same)to last season

    6. Same with Gasol

    7. Same with Mayo

    8. Randolph was praised by the league this season and awarded...not the other guys

    9. In spite of Gay still being a chucker, Randolph is having his best year in shooting % and points.

      Sam, one could argue anything but when you try and overlook the obvious, It's kind of hard to argue with you.

      Both Mayo and Gay are chuckers and like I said, in spite of that, Randolph is not only leading the team in rebounds, field goal %, and points, he is the leader of that team.

      Sam, if you blame Baron since he is the highest paid player on this team, shouldn't you also praise Zach for turning that team around instead of arguably praising the other guys?

      That's my point you never get...you have a tendency to use a double standard in a argument.

      12 game turnaround with 13 games left is a huge accomplishment and not only the stats but the comments around the league contradict what you are saying.

      If a GM was blindfolded and told he could bring in a player making 17 million that can give them a 12-16 game turnaround with a chance to make the play-offs, would he be stupid not to take him?

      That's really all i have to say.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    Sam, here is what I mean:

    Sam: Baron is getting paid the most so he is responsible for the lack of wins.

    Joe: It's not that black and white


    Joe: Zach is the leader and is the reason why Memphis has made a dramatic turnaround

    Sam: It's arguably the other guys that are responsible for that success since they are maturing.

    Joe (thinking): but isn't that a direct contradiction to a previous statement considering Zach gets paid the most and is the most productive guy on the team?????

    So Baron is to blame since he is the highest paid and Zach is punished for being the highest paid in spite of him being the best player on that team????

    That's what I mean about a double standard.

    checkdafool10
    Posts: 2465
    Location: Los Angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 11

    um yea Mark Jackson seems like a good shot in the arm

    Steady818
    Clipper All-Star
     Avatar
    Posts: 1482
    Location: North Hollywoooooood 818
    am.gif
    votes: 12

    I would say give Mark Jackson a try but i think he might need a little bit of experience somewhere else before coming to the nba and coaching. really its a log jam on who to pick up as coach only because most of the great ones are already with jobs. byron scott really?? Jeff Van Gundy??? Avery Johnson??

    My 2 cents get a coach with a consistent system whoever that might be who can shift good rotations and put him in. whether that is mark, byron, jeff, and let next season play through.

    And as for the whole baron arguement going on.

    1. Hes not worth all the money he gets 13 mil is over the top money could be spent a whole lot better

    2. Even at that though he is not the reason we are in another losing season sure he cost the team a couple games but really who hasn't. kaman has gordon has, the lack of having a bench scoring has.

    might i add that having a new interim coach has also had a large part in this real awful end to a season.

    Baron isn't living up to his contract but he's giving it what hes got i honestly think hes playing good maybe 8 million dollar player caliber truthfully but at the end of the night i wouldn't want to trade him a bag of doritos

    Cliptonyte
    Clipper Starter
    Posts: 722
    Location: Cliptonyte
    votes: 4

    journeyman wrote:
    Cliptonyte wrote:
    SamMays wrote:
    Jackson being a new coach, we don't know what his offensive system would be, what his defensive system would be and how he'd relate to his players... And working with Baron Davis? That's an awful lot of taking a chance on someone...

    I usually agree with you Sam. I don't think going with another experienced sub .500 retread is the answer.

    Fun fact: Mike Dunleavy's record was above .500 when he was first hired by Sterling in 2003.

    Quote:
    Nearly all of the experienced winning coaches have jobs. I would probably consider Scott and Van Gundy a step up from Dunleavy, but how much better are they really? With a guy like Jackson, you might just have your next great NBA head coach. With the experienced retreads, you pretty much know what you are going to get.

    Well... what's the other side of that equation? Jackson might be the next great coach. Or he could be Kim Hughes or John Lucas without the experience.

    Quote:
    I think Jackson would need to be surrounded by at least one former experienced NBA head coach as an assistant...

    Ideally, shouldn't it be reversed?

    Not unless that head coach is an experienced winner, like I said, we don't need another sub .500 retread as a head coach. Ideally, it would be great to have an inexperienced winning head coach, but as I said, those guys have jobs already...

    If Jackson didn't work out, it wouldn't be any different than one of those sub .500 retreads, but like I said, you already know what you are getting with said retreads. You just don't know with Jackson, he could be great, or he could be as good as one of those retreads.

    What's the point in going with another guy that you know isn't going to be a winner?

    I think I have explained this very clearly in my previous post on this subject.

    Dunleavy's record got inflated by inheriting a very talented Portland team. Even with that team, he only came in a few games over .500. Even that Portland team was said to underachieve, and that's why he ultimately got canned. He's had some good teams, and the guy isn't a bad coach by any means, but I wouldn't consider him a good coach. He's probably a slightly above average coach. If you look closely at his teams, a huge majority of the time they under achieved. He's certainly not what people would call a "program builder" or "team builder".

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    Joe, here's what I said about Randolph in Memphis.

    It says, "certainly, he's helped, but how much?" There is no way of knowing for sure... You might say he's responsible for the entire 12-game improvement. I might say, if they had simply added a solid journeyman starter like Gooden at 5-million they might be close to where they are now. If they had Gooden and spent the 12-million left over (for not having to pay Zach's 17-million) elsewhere, they might have made an 18 game improvement... I would rather have Gooden plus 12-million to spend than have Zach Randolph... I think Memphis would be a better team for it.

    I would rather have Sessions plus 10-million to spend elsewhere than have Baron Davis... I think the Clippers would be a better team for it... Ten million would bring in Ariza AND Felton... So, for roughly the cost of Baron Davis, we could have Ariza, Felton and Sessions (or players of that ilk)... We would be better.

    I think our disagreement simply comes down to this. I keep trying to bring their salaries into the equation, while you keep taking the salaries out of the equation... I'm not saying Gooden is as good as Z-bo... I am saying that Gooden plus 12-million to spend elsewhere would help your team more than Z-bo... I'm not saying Sessions is as good as Baron. I'm saying Sessions plus 10-million to spend elsewhere would help the Clippers more than Baron.

    I'm not sure how you can say that you can't take this argument serioiusly... This is at the essense of what it takes to be competitive in the NBA now, GETTING WINS FOR YOUR BUCK... Learning how to spend your salary cap wisely. When you spend top dollar, you'd better get a player who brings wins with him... Lebron at 16-million is a bargain. Kobe, Carmelo, Nowistky and many others are the same... 16-million for Redd is a waste of money despite the fact that he always put up great numbers. The team is actually playing better without him... The Knicks paid big money for Marbury, got no wins from it...

    We had two very highly paid players last year in Baron and Randolph and got what for it? Those two guys took up 55% of our cap space and we got 19 wins... If you're going to pay two guys that much money, they should make a team respectable, if not a playoff level team... They didn't. They were grossly overpaid...

    A GM gets paid for figuring out how to use his 55-million chips to get the most wins possible... End of story. Stats, such as assists, shooting percentages, etc. are a distant second... Baron has been a very bad use of our GM's chips.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
     Avatar
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    SamMays wrote:
    Joe, here's what I said about Randolph in Memphis.

    Quote:

    That Memphis team was going to get better anyway as the result of the growing maturity of Mayo, Gay and Conley and the dramatic improvement of Gasol. How much better has Randolph made them? Certainly, he's helped, but how much. I would argue that they would have been about where they are right now with a player like Gooden plugged into that spot.

    It says, "certainly, he's helped, but how much?" There is no way of knowing for sure... You might say he's responsible for the entire 12-game improvement. I might say, if they had simply added a solid journeyman starter like Gooden at 5-million they might be close to where they are now. If they had Gooden and spent the 12-million left over (for not having to pay Zach's 17-million) elsewhere, they might have made an 18 game improvement... I would rather have Gooden plus 12-million to spend than have Zach Randolph... I think Memphis would be a better team for it.

    Yes, you did say that but how much does a hypothetical carry weight than the present facts? You actually think a Gooden is worth the same amount as a Zach? And even if you did have that extra money + Gooden, what guarantee is there that that 12 million fills the need that Zach brings to the table? What we do know as fact is that a team improving 12 game from a losing season to a winning season and counting is very hard to do. Especially when you had the same players from last season. You know this.

    And if what you say is true, what does that matter? If 17 million gets you to your current destination, what difference does it make if that 17 million is used on 1 player or 2/3? Especially if your starting piece ( Gooden) has been traded more times than the years he's been a pro?

    Quote:
    I would rather have Sessions plus 10-million to spend elsewhere than have Baron Davis... I think the Clippers would be a better team for it... Ten million would bring in Ariza AND Felton... So, for roughly the cost of Baron Davis, we could have Ariza, Felton and Sessions (or players of that ilk)... We would be better.

    Yeah, and having Sessions ( did you see him single handily lose the game against the Lakers last night?) puts us in a worse situation at the PG spot and fills other not so critical needs. That's the equivalent of rearranging the chairs on the Titanic, Sam.

    Yeah, we could fill the SF spot which by the way, we have money for and use 10 million on spots that are pretty much taken.

    With your scenario, we shore up all the positions and leave a mediocre PG who can't get a starter's job on a bad team, to run this team. Not sure about you, but that isn't a winning formula.

    Quote:

    I think our disagreement simply comes down to this. I keep trying to bring their salaries into the equation, while you keep taking the salaries out of the equation... I'm not saying Gooden is as good as Z-bo... I am saying that Gooden plus 12-million to spend elsewhere would help your team more than Z-bo... I'm not saying Sessions is as good as Baron. I'm saying Sessions plus 10-million to spend elsewhere would help the Clippers more than Baron.

    No, I am not taking their salaries out of the equation, you are bringing in their salaries as a way to question their worth. And my main gripe is your double standard...not salaries.

    Again, you said Baron is to blame for the woes on this team cause he is paid large money to produce wins. Yet, you punish and diminish Zach for coming to a team that YOU said would fall apart with Zach and at the time, AI.

    Now that the team has had one of the best turnarounds in the league this year, you want to say you can plug in a player like Gooden and have the same results? And then move the goal post and say with Gooden and NOW the 12 million they could have obtained the same result?

    Where is the logic of paying the big bucks to produce wins? Where is the logic of the blaming/praising the big paid players for the failures and achievements now?

    You are playing a different tune now Sam. Just like I was telling you it isn't that black and white but according to you:

    "We're 25 and whatever... It's not Outlaw, Blake, Gordon, Smith, DJ or Butler's fault... The blame goes to the people making the money... The supposed team leaders... That's Baron... Kaman is the second most responsible. "

    ... That's my gripe. When I use your same logic on you on a player you hate, that logic is thrown out the window.

    replace our players with Memphis players and replace Baron with Zach and you see what I am saying?

    Quote:

    We had two very highly paid players last year in Baron and Randolph and got what for it? Those two guys took up 55% of our cap space and we got 19 wins... If you're going to pay two guys that much money, they should make a team respectable, if not a playoff level team... They didn't. They were grossly overpaid...

    Yup , and how many games did Zach play with us? When did Zach come to this team? And what was the average games played by our starters? And what was our record with Zach on the floor? A team record doesn't tell the story, not with us at least. if you can answer each one of those questions I am sure you will be moire than surprised or at least able to find some valid reasons why we ended up that way.

    Quote:
    A GM gets paid for figuring out how to use his 55-million chips to get the most wins possible... End of story. Stats, such as assists, shooting percentages, etc. are a distant second... Baron has been a very bad use of our GM's chips.

    Sam, Baron is making 12 million this season. Kaman is making 10.4. After that, the next player is Griffin with 4.9, Blake 4.9.

    Do you honestly think a 12 million dollar player is really the problem? Is he really eating up most of the 57.7 salary cap this season?

    Here are players that are NOT leaders that are making more than Baron:

    Peja (NO) + 2 million

    Richard Jefferson: + 2 million

    Keyon Martin: +4 million

    Andre Iguodala: about the same

    Brad Miller: about the same -slightly more

    Antawn Jamison: 400 grand less

    Richard Hamilton: 400 grand less

    Sam, you want to know what these players have in common? They are getting salaries based on years of experience in the league. Want to know the difference? None of those guys are the biggest salaries on their teams.

    Aside from Hamilton, most those guys will see the post season as pieces, not leaders!

    So if you want to blame Baron for making less or the same as those guys, go ahead...those guys don't have to carry a team.

    Furthermore, we are currently ranked 26th in team salaries with Baron making the equivalent of a second tier guy on a play-off team.

    Maybe you should look into team salaries or teams that are making a play-off run and see where baron fits in in terms of salary. The problem isn't what Baron makes, the problem is what the guys below him make...that is only if you believe money produces wins.

    Sam, making 12 million as the highest paid player on a team doesn't get you far. Add that we are 26th in team salaries and you have the Clippers.

    If Griffin is your 3rd highest player that has not played a single game and in his first year, how would you expect us to do with talent like that?

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    Quote:

    Peja (NO) + 2 million

    Richard Jefferson: + 2 million

    Keyon Martin: +4 million

    Andre Iguodala: about the same

    Brad Miller: about the same -slightly more

    Antawn Jamison: 400 grand less

    Richard Hamilton: 400 grand less

    Joe, what do most of these players you noted have in common? Answer... NOT WINNING... They're like Baron. The exceptions are Martin and Jefferson. Jefferson was brought into an already hugely successful team. Martin plays with a great leader in Billups and a great talent in Carmelo... The others, like Baron, aren't worth what they're being paid. If you pay big money and don't win, that money is wasted.

    Quote:

    Yes, you did say that but how much does a hypothetical carry weight than the present facts? You actually think a Gooden is worth the same amount as a Zach? And even if you did have that extra money + Gooden, what guarantee is there that that 12 million fills the need that Zach brings to the table?

    I never said anything about a guarantee. Go back and read what I wrote. The word "might" is in their twice... As in, they "might" be as good or better with just Gooden. They "might" be significantly better with Gooden and 12-million spend on someone else.

    Quote:

    You actually think a Gooden is worth the same amount as a Zach?

    Say what? I never said anything of the sort... I even said in this thread that I don't think Gooden is as good as Zack... Try to be accurate, Joe. What I said was I would prefer to have Gooden AND 12-million to add another player... I also said that if they plugged Gooden into Zach's spot the TEAM might be as good or close to it as they are with Zach... Again, you're taking what I'm saying and interpreting it wrongly to use in your own argument.

    You can keep blaming the indians if you want... The bottom line is, our problems aren't the result of our role players... Our problems are because our BEST PLAYERS aren't good enough... And it's hard to bring in new best players when you have a very average one (and fading) in Baron taking up 25% of your payroll.

    We're not in the position of a team that built with youth like Detroit was, or Portland is doing now, who can go over the cap to sign their productive winning players and keep their teams together. We're trying to throw money at the problem up front without having a strong nuclues to build around.

    We've had Baron for two seasons now and we've won 19 and 26 games so far. How can you even argue that the signing of Baron Davis has been good for this franchise? We would have been much better off investing in younger players and building for the future.

    So far we've paid 25-million dollars for 45 wins... Now, if you'd prefer to say Baron is getting paid by the assist, I'm sure you can make a case that he was worth every penny.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
     Avatar
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    SamMays wrote:

    Joe, what do most of these players you noted have in common? Answer... NOT WINNING... They're like Baron. The exceptions are Martin and Jefferson. Jefferson was brought into an already hugely successful team. Martin plays with a great leader in Billups and a great talent in Carmelo... The others, like Baron, aren't worth what they're being paid. If you pay big money and don't win, that money is wasted.

    Peja just came off of giving the Hornets their best season as a franchise...did you forget? Did you forget the Sac days? Peja looks pretty ordinary without help, no? Proved my point.

    Jefferson...Nets, did you forget?

    Brad Miller...Sac days.

    Jamison...made play-offs how many times?

    Sam, you also proved another point: If these guys don't win and are getting more or equal to what Braon makes, doesn't that make it the norm for players of that caliber? You ain't winning this either way, Sam.

    Let's see you list?

    Quote:
    I never said anything about a guarantee. Go back and read what I wrote. The word "might" is in their twice... As in, they "might" be as good or better with just Gooden. They "might" be significantly better with Gooden and 12-million spend on someone else.

    I never said you said that. I posed a question:

    "what guarantee is there that that 12 million fills the need that Zach brings to the table?" ..BIG BIG DIFFERENCE.

    You didn't say that but you did say this:

    "I might say, if they had simply added a solid journeyman starter like Gooden at 5-million they might be close to where they are now"

    So are you standing behind this statement or not? Are you debating a weak argument and distancing yourself from it or are you standing behind it? Is the "I might say" a disclaimer or are you saying it? If we are debating, it has to be either or.

    Quote:
    Say what? I never said anything of the sort... I even said in this thread that I don't think Gooden is as good as Zack... Try to be accurate, Joe. What I said was I would prefer to have Gooden AND 12-million to add another player... I also said that if they plugged Gooden into Zach's spot the TEAM might be as good or close to it as they are with Zach... Again, you're taking what I'm saying and interpreting it wrongly to use in your own argument.

    Yes, you did.

    "I might say, if they had simply added a solid journeyman starter like Gooden at 5-million they might be close to where they are now"

    Your original statement NEVER mentioned the balance of salaries ( see above). You changed them after I put that statement in to question.

    Sorry if I didn't read between the lines but in a debate, you need to be specific and ans stand by the original statements.

    Quote:

    You can keep blaming the indians if you want... The bottom line is, our problems aren't the result of our role players... Our problems are because our BEST PLAYERS aren't good enough... And it's hard to bring in new best players when you have a very average one (and fading) in Baron taking up 25% of your payroll.

    I ain't blaming no one, I am countering your argument about "money produces wins". Since this is a team sport, you can't pick a player and single him out, you need to see what the team spends and see what we put on the court as a whole....that is if you believe "money produces wins".

    Since we are 26th in the league in terms of spending, where are we at now? Doesn't that make more sense than singling out a player you hate?

    Quote:
    We're not in the position of a team that built with youth like Detroit was, or Portland is doing now, who can go over the cap to sign their productive winning players and keep their teams together. We're trying to throw money at the problem up front without having a strong nuclues to build around.

    Uh, yes we are. We have Gordon, Griffin, and DJ....and a draft pick coming up.

    And Detroit didn't make the play-offs till they traded for Wallace...a veteran that was overpaid!

    Quote:
    We've had Baron for two seasons now and we've won 19 and 26 games so far. How can you even argue that the signing of Baron Davis has been good for this franchise? We would have been much better off investing in younger players and building for the future.

    Sam, I ain't the one arguing, you are!

    I am just saying that he isn't the problem...you are!

    Sam, we are a young team already..aside from Baron and Rasual. How much younger do you want to go?

    And let's also remember, Teams like the SPURS didn't just become good in one season by the draft. They started with Duncan and kept the General for a few years and they didn't just dump Avery Johnson, they waited for the replacement in Parker and released him after his second year.

    We are a young team through the draft and will continue to be but even teams built through draft also keep old players until then.

    So we are a young team and we are built through the draft so I am not sure what we are debating? How much younger do you want us to be?

    Quote:

    So far we've paid 25-million dollars for 45 wins... Now, if you'd prefer to say Baron is getting paid by the assist, I'm sure you can make a case that he was worth every penny.

    No, so far we have invested enough to get to the 26th spot in terms of spending.

    And with such a young group of guys that have limited experience, you can see why we are were we are.

    Sam,, Was Kobe overpaid when we ended up with a better record and they had new guys on his team?

    What did it take Kobe to get on back on top?

    Gasol? Phil Jackson? Bynum?

    You put anyone with experienced and young talent, usually a balance, and you can make anyone great. Put someone like Kobe without a coach and few new players and you have a mediocre team and the best player in the league doesn't look as great. By the way, Kobe had better talent than Baron at his worst.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    duplicate

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    Kobe never got down to the level where we've been in the two years we've had Baron. Kobe kept that team from falling below mediocrity... We had one good year and it coincided with a down year for the Lakers, so we had a better record... I don't recall what their record was and I'm not going to look it up, but it wasn't 19 - 63 or 26 - 43...

    Let's break this down to something basic, without all the minutia... Frankly, I'm having trouble trying to keep track of it all as we try to parce what each of us says, or capitalize on mistatements or misreadings of statements to satisfy our own point of view...

    Let's simplify an argument which has gotten too convoluted... Which team would you rather have going into this off-season?

    A) Kaman, Baron, Griffin, Gordon and DJ coming back with around 16,000,000 to spend to round out the rest of your roster.

    B) Kaman, Griffin, Gordon and DJ coming back with around 29,000,000 to spend to round out the rest of your roster.

    I'd take team B... I don't think Baron is worth what he's paid... If you take team A, then you think Baron is worth the money he's paid... And that's fine... There's no right or wrong answer here... Just opinions since we don't live in a quantum universe where both options could be played out...

    So, which team, Joe?

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
     Avatar
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    SamMays wrote:
    Quote:

    Sam,, Was Kobe overpaid when we ended up with a better record and they had new guys on his team?

    What did it take Kobe to get on back on top?

    Gasol? Phil Jackson? Bynum?

    Kobe never got down to the level where we've been in the two years we've had Baron. Kobe kept that team from falling below mediocrity... We had one good year and it coincided with a down year for the Lakers, so we had a better record... I don't recall what their record was and I'm not going to look it up, but it wasn't 19 - 63 or 26 - 43...

    Sam, (2003-2004) the Lakers went 34-48 with Caron, Lamar and Kobe as the main guys. Caron, Lamar, and Kobe are better than our 3 best players now.

    And when you consider that was after they won a 3peat and lost in the finals, well, that is a harder fall than we ever took. Baron came in with NONE of the guys we had success with. Well, Kaman doesn't count, he only played the last stretch of the season when things were long over with.

    Quote:
    A) Kaman, Baron, Griffin, Gordon and DJ coming back with around 16,000,000 to spend to round out the rest of your roster.

    B) Kaman, Griffin, Gordon and DJ coming back with around 29,000,000 to spend to round out the rest of your roster.

    I'd take team B... I don't think Baron is worth what he's paid... If you take team A, then you think Baron is worth the money he's paid... And that's fine... There's no right or wrong answer here... Just opinions since we don't live in a quantum universe where both options could be played out...

    So, which team, Joe?

    There is no right answer, Sam. Until I know for a FACT what I will get in return, I don't have an answer for that. If we have the cap space and do nothing with it, I am keeping this team together. If we spend that cap space and over pay cause we need to fill out the roster, I am sticking with this team.

    Sam, there are a lot more teams that are going to be scourging up players just to get a team together for clearing up space when they find out those elite players are all taken. A lot of teams are going to wish they didn't clean house.

    Like I said, until I find out what I am going to get in return, I'd keep the team intact and fill out the roster. For god's sake, we have plenety of cap room.

    On one hand, you say you want to build through the draft...we are. That doesn't require a lot of money...at least not now.

    On the other hand, you want to bring in mediocre players that make 4 million or 5 million that are seasoned vets. Guys that can't stay in one place or can't get a starting job on one of the worst teams this year.

    What good is the cap space if you want to build through the draft?

    So to answer your question, if we don't get a top tier guy in return, I'd keep Baron instead of a Sessions.

    SamMays
    CTB MVP X1
    Posts: 4020
    votes: 53

    Joe, there you go making it all complicated again... It's a hypothetical to get your opinion on whether or not Baron is truly worth the money he's paid... Let's say that Boston offers us a 2025 second round pick for Baron. Nothing else involve, just player for worthless pick... You're the GM. Do you take the deal or not?..

    Do you say "no" to Boston's proposed trade and go with

    A) Baron, Kaman, DJ, Griffin and Gordon plus 16,000,000 to spend going into this off-season to build next year's team

    Do you say "yes" to Boston's proposed trade and go with

    B) Kaman, DJ, Griffin and Gordon plus $29,000,000 to spend this off-season.

    I make the trade.

    By the way, this is open to anyone else who wants to answer.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
     Avatar
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    SamMays wrote:
    Quote:

    So to answer your question, if we don't get a top tier guy in return, I'd keep Baron instead of a Sessions.

    Joe, there you go making it all complicated again... It's a hypothetical to get your opinion on whether or not Baron is truly worth the money he's paid... Let's say that Boston offers us a 2025 second round pick for Baron. Nothing else involve, just player for worthless pick... You're the GM. Do you take the deal or not?..

    Do you say "no" to Boston's proposed trade and go with

    A) Baron, Kaman, DJ, Griffin and Gordon plus 16,000,000 to spend going into this off-season to build next year's team

    Do you say "yes" to Boston's proposed trade and go with

    B) Kaman, DJ, Griffin and Gordon plus $29,000,000 to spend this off-season.

    I make the trade.

    By the way, this is open to anyone else who wants to answer.

    No! Absolutely NO! N-O..Nada.

    Give me A all day long.

    Sam, what's so complicated about my answer? If I was GM, my first duty would be to weigh things out before making a decision. Your proposal seems to lack that.

    MrB
    Clipper All-Star
    Posts: 2433

    us.gif
    votes: 18

    I would do whatever it takes to get rid of Baron before the next coach comes in because he has been nothing but inconsistent in his time here with the Clippers. I don't know if its just rumors or the truth but i've heard he has to be coddled and if it is true thats the kind of player that can kill a team. That is not a leader, if it is true what they say about him. From what i've seen on the court he is a player that can't bring it every night, just once in a while. For the amount of money he is paid, DTS is getting robbed. So get rid of him if possible to help the new coach coming in by removing a head ache waiting to happen. JMHO.

    ekker3
    CTB MVP X2
     Avatar
    Posts: 7257
    votes: 80

    SamMays wrote:
    Quote:

    So to answer your question, if we don't get a top tier guy in return, I'd keep Baron instead of a Sessions.

    Joe, there you go making it all complicated again... It's a hypothetical to get your opinion on whether or not Baron is truly worth the money he's paid... Let's say that Boston offers us a 2025 second round pick for Baron. Nothing else involve, just player for worthless pick... You're the GM. Do you take the deal or not?..

    Do you say "no" to Boston's proposed trade and go with

    A) Baron, Kaman, DJ, Griffin and Gordon plus 16,000,000 to spend going into this off-season to build next year's team

    Do you say "yes" to Boston's proposed trade and go with

    B) Kaman, DJ, Griffin and Gordon plus $29,000,000 to spend this off-season.

    I make the trade.

    By the way, this is open to anyone else who wants to answer.

    i go with "B" only if i know im getting a phenom or top-tier PG in the near future. id even throw in DJ to make that happen.

    that being said, i dont think its wise to keep clearing up cap space for this offseason. if high-priced players like baron are shipped out, and if we have something close to 30 million to spend, ignorant STH are gonna put tons of pressure on the FO to spend all that money (wisely or unwisely). otherwise, they'll be labeled as cheapskates. then we end up with something like jermaine o'neal or gilbert arenas type contracts.

    by the way, sam and joe need a soap opera. DRAMA. Very Happy

    LAC_12
    Clipper All-Star
    Posts: 2029
    Location: West Coast
    votes: 18

    dont be so naive... hes only doing that to get the job. he knows we need a coach. he wasnt so consistent a little while ago, with his respect. the guy has no weight, dont want him.

    clipper*joe
    CTB MVP Champion
    Posts: 15881
    Location: los angeles
    calif.gif
    votes: 125

    LAC_12 wrote:
    clipper*joe wrote:
    ^^ Yup, me too. I swear, this guy is probably one of the only guys that gives us respect. Saw the game against the Bucks on ESPN and could get over how respectful he is and how much he knows about this team. I don't well he will do as coach but I'd welcome him with open arms.

    Too bad this article is nothing but speculation...their words, not mine.

    dont be so naive... hes only doing that to get the job. he knows we need a coach. he wasnt so consistent a little while ago, with his respect. the guy has no weight, dont want him.

    edit:

    Never mind, what's the point...

    MuteHaitian
    Clipper Starter
    Posts: 608
    Location: UCLA
    votes: 1

    I agree with some of the others in that I'd rather get an experienced coach right off the bat.

    LAC_12
    Clipper All-Star
     Avatar
    Posts: 2029
    Location: West Coast
    votes: 18

    ????

    Go To the Top of the ThreadGo Home

    or Comment Using FB

    Post new topic   Reply to topic


    ← Source: Clippers Will Let LeBron Pick His Coach and GM

    → Wow, Kevin Pritchard to be fired soon?

    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!