Official Whine, Moan, Complain Thread 19/20-CLOSED "WE CHAMPS!"

i mean, kawhi and pg picked them (sort of...after they tried to pick us first). and now...reggie jackson.

and i do think they now have better ownership than us, which is very concerning. i think ballmer hit a few early bumps (giving doc too much power in personnel decisions, for example), but he's got it now. and ownership matters a lot. look at ny. look at dallas--who was basically sacramento until cuban bought them. we lost a lot when dr. buss passed.

 

Nobody likes playing with Lebron

mcpphhtttt:

lol

 

Let's be honest... Those players are signing with the Clippers because Balmer gives them BUSINESS opportunities. These guys just want to be connected with Balmer in hopes of being his friend and then being invited to his yacht, etc., I can't blame them. Imagine being connected DIRECTLY to someone who is worth that much money.

 

hmmmph. you really think that george not coming here was about lebron? i've seen this theory bandied about and never bought it.

it is possible kawhi chooses us if lebron's not here. but not without PG. and i suppose he could have walked into our space and brought PG with the assets we sent for AD, but those are some huge IFs. remember that we'd have been coming off another piss-poor year with the brand further in the toilet at that point (as opposed to joining 3/4 of the rotation of a playoff team).

even if that's true, some of the youth (ingram for sure) would have had to go for PG, so you're basically where we're at now, but with kawhi and PG instead of lebron and AD. meh.

honestly, the brand boost of having lebron likely retire in a lakers uniform might be worth it alone, but i'm of the mind that he saved us from becoming the knicks. it would be hard to persuade me otherwise, given the facts leading up to the last couple years.

 

i thought PG didn't sign with the lakers because he was butthurt that they didn't trade their entire roster for him?

don't think lebron had anything to do with PG not signing in LA since he wasn't even a laker yet. and i think kawhi definitely passed on the lakers mainly because he didn't want to join two other superstars BUT like i've said before, had they been unable to land PG i think he would have been a laker

but in the end, let's all be thankful lebron signed and helped this team finally get out of the basement

 

PG wanted to come here even when we had no one except the young kids and we were losing. The story is that he wanted to come home.

Then the narrative shifted that he had fallen in basketball love with Russ. People told me on other boards that he would never leave him.

Then he agrees to come home and leave Russ anyway.

No one knows for sure what happened. LBJ was the superior player, even at his advanced age... but PG was a more docile, beta type personality that one could pair with more people.

The kids went from winning 17 to 26 to 35 before LBJ. They would have made the playoffs if LBJ, Ingram, and Zo didn't get hurt.

The plan was always to add two elites to the core. I'm not saying they'd be number one in the West, but we would have been a playoff team with a team chocked full of assets and flexibility.

It's absurd to compare them to the Knicks who were moving in the opposite direction.

This was going all in on the next two years and hoping the winning would attract another agent to replace LBJ

That other player better be Giannis or Dame... because AD alone isn't getting it done

 

oh christ. AD with a lebron-centric roster while lebron is off the floor isn't getting it done. big whoop.

and we weren't heading anywhere prior to lebron/AD. at all. it's easy to win 35 games instead of 20. it's MUCH harder to win 50 or 60 instead of 35.

there weren't two elites to be had without trading away pretty much all the youth. not a single person has provided convincingly realistic paths to such an outcome (keep all kids and get two superstars).

but, as usual, we've been over this.

 

Our net rating with the kids before LBJ (-1.3) was higher than the Pels' net rating before Boogie, Mirotic, Rondo came (-2.1) in 2017 or (-3.7) in 2016

Many have said it was a foregone conclusion that a team with AD would be superior than the kids no matter what.

All I'm saying is that it isn't. The second agent is crucial to our future success.

 

The problem is Rondo. Well, that's one of them.

If LBJ was 30, it wouldn't be an issue; that LBJ can play 40 minutes and dominate; thie LBJ mins need to be monitored.

 

why does it always lead you this route as if its a knock against AD? them the facts and you suggest its this roster is constructed for james is not fact....this is how most team around the league is constructed, a bunch of jump shooting/3pt shooting role players thats why 3/d wing are a premium these days. Its not just due to not having james on the floor, the O has no play maker nor anyone else that can create shots on their own when james isnt in the floor. If AD is getting this "super-star" title he can and should be able to play with the same roster...but since you bringing it up what is a roster that will conture to AD then amd how do we get it when James is gone?

 

It's not a knock against AD so much as a knock of AD for several assets.

I have said dozens of times that I like AD... but he doesn't win by himself. Jrue Holiday was not enough for AD (watching him this season, I can see why... he's really overrated imo) So we need a Giannis or Lillard type player to compete for a title. Maybe AD would have worked with the young core if they keep improving... but there is no core left to help him. Abeer just said it was crucial that we handle the LBJ transition with intelligence and I agree with him on that point. Obviously no one can win by himself, even Shaq and Kobe... but people miscontrue my dislike of the price with dislike or disrespect of the player.

That net rating (which isn't an infallible stat) difference just hammered home what I had suspected from the eye test.

 

well the price was the price, I dont believe pellies wouldve budged on it so no pt in crying bout giving up "to much" and I dont believe we would be where we are now with the kids either, only one id have preferred to keep that might have been negotiable to nop is Hart. Zo n Ingram wouldve always had to be part of the pkg, you arguing the blood clot thing makes no difference

 

You have no inside information as to what all the plans and contingencies were. Stop stating as facts. All you have is your usual, "people were telling me". And once you pay the "two elites" and Ingram, how you planning on keeping the rest of the "kids" as opposed to their market value? NO will be in the same boat. You don't just keep them indefinitely without paying up. And you damn well better be sure you pay the right ones.

 

What is sacrosanct about this "core" term with you? Jerry West hasn't seemed to give a crap about it with how the Clippers shipped most all of their "kids" out has he? You keep building a team as best you can around the stars you most wanted. Some of those vets will still be around at great prices in following years, and you have some levels of Bird rights with them to retain and give raises to if they have done well and you want to.

 

this; the term "core" is a bit of a misnomer.

 

Core is everyone less the stars of your team .... that was here yesterday.

 

Lonzo and Hart in spite of their flaws wouldn't be easy to replace.

If they were we would have replaced them before the trade deadline or through the buyout market.

They are flawed... sure... but good players.

I think we are overrating Ingram somewhat and underrating Lonzo.

If Ingram takes the next step which is staying healthy all year and closing games... then this becomes an epic tragedy... if he never gets much better than he is now... then I can see more justification for the trade.

Zo has been playing well the last ten or so games... Gentry had him rotting behind Jrue earlier in the season and has used him more since Jrue got injured and Lonzo showed some of his promise. Hart has been solid all year.

Hard to say who we take at #4... I think Hayes would have been the best with hindsight... but I think we would have taken Garland because of the Klutch connection. Garland started out poorly... which is to be expected from a kid with 5 college games under his belt... but has improved significantly.

Again, my use of the word core is a euphemism. I think it's less inflammatory than for me to list the 16 squandered assets of the past six years.

If we had kept some of those smaller pieces... believe me I'd be a lot more pleased with how things went.

Didn't have to be just Zo or Ingram... if we kept some of even the Svi, Bryant, Mo, Bonga level players I'd be a lot less negative.

It's the loss of depth I'm bemoaning. Sure I loved those players... but again I think we lost too much and where I disagree with most of you is that I don't believe it was necessary