# OT: Baron Drops 40 and 13 dimes, Warriors 9 wins out of last 10



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

When's the last time we've had a player capable of dropping 40 points and 13 assists?

When's the last time we've won 9 out of 10?

Ya I'll say it again, the Warriors sure did commit suicide by trading 2 guys who weren't going to be on their team next season for an all-star point guard.

So yay let's keep celebrating wins over doormats like Atlanta and a buzzer beater over Charlotte, meanwhile the Warriors are kicking *** and taking names.

Had we gotten Baron with that kind of winning we'd be right there with Denver for the 8th spot and I much rather be talking now about a potential playoff series rather than whether or not we should draft Rashad McCants.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

When did the Clips have a chance at getting him? Are you the clips GM. He is a good player but your bickering with Yam is becoming very irritating.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

Yeah, it is a shame seeing what Davis is doing for the Warriors. He could have been a nice pick-up.

If this thread becomes a bashing or insulting of certain posters, I am immediately closing it.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

arenas809 said:


> When's the last time we've had a player capable of dropping 40 points and 13 assists?
> 
> When's the last time we've won 9 out of 10?
> 
> ...



It pains me to agree with you... But Baron Davis would have been a great pick up. He is playing at a very high level, and I think the best is yet to come.


----------



## Mavs4Life (Oct 22, 2003)

If the Clippers were interested, I'm sure they could have got Baron. They have quite a few tradeable assets. Packaging Kittles (expiring contract) with Kaman probably would have been enough, considering how little the Warriors gave up for him. He's an injury risk, yes. But for teams like the Warriors & Clippers (teams that are trying to get over the hump), I think it's a risk that would have been worth taking. The Warriors went for it, the Clippers didn't. Right now he's playing like the best PG in the league. If he gets hurt, people will be calling Mullin the worst GM in the league. It's a two way street. The Warriors weren't going to have enough cap room this summer to get an All-Star caliber player, so I think that's why they pulled the trigger. You guys, on the other hand, will have enough cap room to get whoever you want this summer. We'll see what EB does with it.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Well considering the fact that as soon as Baron's name was out there and the Clips were connected, I think it's reasonable to say that it would have been possible to attain him.

I'm not necessarily calling anyone here in particular out, nor do I need to, my record on this issues and others speaks for itself.

For the Clips to have an expiring nobody like Kittles and not use him to parlay it into something like Baron is ridiculous. If Baron were 30, I wouldn't be interested, but considering he's 25 and his contract ends while he's in his prime, I don't know, for the price he ultimately went for, he would have been worth it.

I'm just not under the delusion that we will be able to sign a superstar, I believe if we're going to get one it would have to be via trade.

To say Baron is not a superstar just demonstrates a lack of knowledge of the game and denial of what Baron has done throughout his career.

All I know is right now they are on a roll, and we could be talking about how great the Clips look and be preparing for the playoffs had we stepped up to the plate.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Mavs4Life said:


> It's a two way street. The Warriors weren't going to have enough cap room this summer to get an All-Star caliber player, so I think that's why they pulled the trigger. You guys, on the other hand, will have enough cap room to get whoever you want this summer. We'll see what EB does with it.


Cap space means nothing when you can't do anything with it. Atlanta has had cap space for years, what has it done for them?

Utah had cap this past year, what are they doing right now?

The Clips have a reputation and that rep is not going to be fixed just because of our actions the past 2 years. Great we went after Kobe, and we pat ourselves on the back because we "almost" got him. Almost doesn't count, in our pursuit of him we lost out on other oppurtunities and ultimately we used our cap space to trade for a scrub.

We offered money to Fred Hoiberg, Chris Mihm, Deshawn Stevenson this past summer, NONE of those guys came, if we can't get players like that, why are we convincing ourselves we can get a Michael Redd or Ray Allen?

It's silly, hopefully one day we'll wake up to the reality of our situation, hopefully one day we'll be proactive and get things done to actually make this team better, this hasn't been a bad year, but I'm not doing somersaults over it either.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Cap space doesnt mean much also because you dont usually build a team through free agency unless its an MVP canidate. Most teams build through drafting and trades. That is why I think the Clips should keep this group together and let them grow. Shaun has shown you can give him the ball and let him create.


----------



## Mavs4Life (Oct 22, 2003)

arenas809 said:


> Cap space means nothing when you can't do anything with it. Atlanta has had cap space for years, what has it done for them?
> 
> Utah had cap this past year, what are they doing right now?
> 
> ...


My point was that due to the fact that the Clippers do have cap space, there is the _possibility_ of acquiring a top notch player this summer. Yes, I know there is no certainty that they will. But when you're deciding whether or not to take a risk on paying the max to an injury-prone player such as Baron for the next five years, the fact that you have a lot of money sitting around could make you a little hesitant to pull the trigger. Every team thinks they can attract the best players. Whether they can or not is a different story.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Once again a terrible post saying that we should have done something, without looking long term. As others have said, many teams, including the clippers could have gotten baron with EASE. Why didnt they? Because of his contract and injury problem. 

If he had a 1 or 2 year contract, i say the clippers would have probably would have given up near anyone on their roster outside of the main 4 to get him. But, no, he has a 5 year contract where hes owed 70 million. If he has a career threatening injury, which he has more of a chance of getting with his particular injury than pretty much anyone in the league his age, clippers still have to pay the salary because the injury is uninsured. 

Bravo sterling for not being dumb nor desperate enough to take such a terrible risk. Theres a chance baron becomes an all star again and doesnt miss a game for 5 years. But the odds are he will again be shelved because of the injury problem, as he has for 3 years. Its not worth a 70 million dollar gamble. As a fan, all you care about is chances of winning, no matter what the cost. But remember, this is a BUSINESS, and its run by MONEY. ALMOST NO BUSINESS IN THEIR RIGHT MIND nor invidivual for that matter would take such a risk unless they had nothing to lose, or they just felt really "lucky." Sterling did not become as successful business man, and did not get such a profitable franchise on being "lucky." He takes the occasional risk, but theres no way hes going to take a 70 million dollar HUGE risk.

Good job for baron and that hes doing well in golden state. Maybe he can bring his average up to 20 points a game, and hopefully get to 40% shooting on the year, if he keeps up his good streak. Kind of hurt that with tonights 4 of 18 percentage, but he is a streaky player. Unlike others here, i dont "hate" on people who get injured, nor am i going to start calling him names. I actually have been following baron davis game since he was at crossroads high school. I enjoy watching him as a fan, and while hes not a superstar, if he ever was healthy hes a top 5 point guard in the league. 

Cap space is very important. If you have an attitude of, 'oh ill never get this player" thats the attitude of a terrible team, and the clippers dont have that attitude. Cap space does mean a lot for some teams. Like this year, only 3-4 teams have a max slot available for a max type player. Only two of them (1 argulabley) this year, so that means the clippers have a 25% chance at getting one of them, which would be 0% if they didnt have the cap space. If they dont get one, its definately a loss, but again, you dont go into things like this with an attitude that you cant get someone. If all teams had that attitude, no one would sign restricted free agents to offer sheets, because theyd assume the other team would match it every time. 

Again, lets say baron becomes an all star the next 5 years running. The clippers still at the time made the right move by not getting him. Too much of a risk. The game is about moving on the odds at the moment, you cant take 70 million dollar risks, when there is a history of injury. Paying ANYONE in the league 70 million is a risk in itself, so why quadrouple the risk with someone who has an injury as serious as baron? 

Sure, the clippers could have gotten him for very little in return, but i wouldnt have done it if he came for free. Free would be as in if he were a free agent, coming off of 3 injury plagued seasons, and wanted 70 million dollars. Wouldnt happen. If he was a FA this year, he would not have gone for such a high contract because of the injury. On the same token, you dont trade for that contract either just because it might help you for one month, and even that would be iffy. 

Retrospect is something that anyone can use. We can use retrospect to say how we could have gotten carter. Yes, i would have liked to see that, but again, at the time, the clippers made the right decision by not going after someone with his injury history, and play the last couple of years. But i still would have done a carter deal 100 times out of 100 before doing a baron deal. Carter is someone who is a bonafied superstar, no questions. Leading all star vote getter, whether he is injured or not, one of the most popular players since jordan, and he actually plays a position the clippers needed a superstar at. But again, i in the clippers shoes would not have done the deal either basing it on his condition. 

Almost getting kobe most certainly does count, because it changed the image of our team. Hoiberg remained faithful to his team, he and ther other players mentioned were role players. If we would have offered them HUGE money they would have come. We too got players like mikki moore and rebraca who chose us over teams even offering them more money. So using your logic, we must be able to get redd and allen to come here for less money too. No, doesnt work that way. each situation is different. to say we couldnt get hoiborg so that means we cant get allen, is like saying hey we got rebraca, so we must be able to get allen. What you can compare it to is "hey we almost got kobe who is better than allen and redd, so dang, we have a chance to get those guys too." 

In conclusion, again, good job baron the last couple of weeks, i like to see players like he, grant hill, hopefully kittles next year, kirilinko, etc. etc. come back from injuries. Injuries is no laughing matter, and its nice when they can be overcome. But there is nothing that can be said to say that the clippers made the wrong move AT THE TIME by not getting him. If he becomes mvp the next few years, still it doesnt matter. Clippers are not fortune tellers, they can only go one what gives the team the best chance to win, the best chance to make sure the clipeprs as an organization stay profitable.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I love how you start a post by saying "oh another terrible post" coming from you that's just hilarious, a person who chooses to ignore facts.

At what stretch of this season had the Warriors won 10 of 11 before trading for Baron Davis?

Why don't you go read some of Pietrus's quotes where he talks about how easy the game has become because he has Baron getting him the ball, he's averaging like 20 ppg the last 5 or 6 games.

How easy would he have made the game for Brand? Maggette? Simmons? Kaman? Wilcox? 

You love to bring up oh he shot 4-19 tonight, ok he also shot 10-13 from the FT line, he also had 11 assists, he finished with 22 points and 11 assists, that means he accounted for 50 points (49.5) tonight oh ya AND THEY WON.

Where would our club be right now if we had won 10 out of 11 and they have been beating PLAYOFF teams, it's not like us where we have an orgasm because we thump Atlanta and need a buzzer beater to beat Charlotte.

I mean damn, I love a good debate and a person who has a leg to stand on when they disagree, but you can't ignore facts, you can't ignore that he's had a phenomenal impact on that team, and you can't just automatically figure that he wouldn't have done the same for the Clippers.

You keep bringing up how much money Baron makes, well hell he's one of the best PG's in the game, he should be getting paid, you want to throw max dollars at Michael Redd, but have an issue paying a top 3 point guard who's only 25 years old and who's contract ends when he's only 30?

Ultimately I look at it like this, I wanted to make the playoffs this year, and instead every damn Clipper board you go to is now talking about whether or not we should draft Rashad McCants, another crap year as far as I'm concerned, and acquiring Baron would have changed all that.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

I have not ignored one fact. You are the one who ignores facts. name one fact i have ignored.

Ill name the ones you have ignored:

1. Baron's Contract size vs. his output the last 3 years. 
2. Baron's high risk of serious or career threatening injury.
3. The uninsurability of baron's injury. 
4. The reason why no other team who could get him, other than the warriors wanted him. 
5. In business, you cannot take a 70 million dollar risk that big, when you are this close to being a playoff team for years to come. 



> Why don't you go read some of Pietrus's quotes where he talks about how easy the game has become because he has Baron getting him the ball, he's averaging like 20 ppg the last 5 or 6 games.


this has nothing to do with this debate, but i thought i might point out the fallibility of that statement. First, pietrus is averaging 12 points the last 5 games, and has averaged 3 poitns more since baron has gotten there. Dunleavvy on the other hand is averaging 3 points less, Richardson, 2 points less. 

baron davis went 10 of 13 from the free thow line yet missed those 3 FT's in clutch time, giving portland a chance they shouldnt have had to tie the game. Again, this is not relavent to the debate on if the clippers should have signed him.

I have not ignored one of the actual facts, you cant name one. I have said that if baron could have stayed healthy for a few weeks on the clippers, they would have won more games, of course they would have, with the injuries we have. But, that is irrelevant. First off, it wasnt a guarantee that he would even be able to get healthy this season, something he hasnt been all year. There was a decent chance though, and im sure baylor and sterling though, well, he could give us an OUTSIDE chance of making the playoffs this year (i think even with winning 10 out of 11, they still would be on the outside looking in uness denver tanks here soon...and with the other injuries the clippers have had, the 10 out of 11 is not a given by any stretch), however again, baron davis isnt someone you sign for a playoff run. This is a guy with a 5 year 70 million dollar contract or somewhere thereabouts. YOu have to think long term. What are the chances that ill get my money worth of the 70 million? What has he done the past couple years to earn the 30 million or so that hes gotten? Am i guaranteed hes going to turn his career around, beat the odds, and actually earn his paycheck the next 5 years?" Answer is no. Answer is there is a VERY HIGH probability he will be injured, possibly seriously, and thus all that money was spent on one year, getting into the first round of the playoffs (if denver choked the last 7 games). 

And all of this is not even beginning to mention that you have 5 years invested in your potential superstar of the future in livingston who plays the same position, and who cannot play SG. Meaning that baron, if/when he was healthy would have to play the 2, when for 90% of his career, he has been the main ball handler. 

We could go on and on, if you keep ignoring the facts. I have not ignored one fact, i have brought them out, and even discussed them all. Youre not looking at the big picture though. You for some reason call me a "homer" for the clippers. First of all, thats what were here to be, but second of all, youre a lot worse of a "homer" if all you can think about is us winning a couple more games this year possibly by getting baron davis...not looking at what every other GM looked at, including our GM and owner, which is the all important "big picture" and Actually thinking about what 70 million dollars is going to. 

And, no, if baron davis goes and gets injured im not going to go rejoicing and say i told you so, or something immature like that. Im not saying this because i want to say i was right down the road. Like i said, theres a small chance he never is injured again. Im just stating the facts of his salary, the facts of his injury problem, the facts of the risk in getting someone like him. Those are the facts you have ignored. Its not about the last 4 weeks of the 2005 season. Its potentially paying someone until 2010 70 million dollars, who has at best 30% chance of actually playing in all, or even 90% of the games.


----------



## halfbreed (Jan 7, 2003)

yamaneko said:


> I have not ignored one fact......
> 
> Its potentially paying someone until 2010 70 million dollars, who has at best 30% chance of actually playing in all, or even 90% of the games.


30% chance? Where did that "fact" come from?

Sometimes you gotta swing for the fences. I'd rather take a chance on Baron than be stuck in mediocrity for another 10 years by playing it safe.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

halfbreed said:


> 30% chance? Where did that "fact" come from?
> 
> Sometimes you gotta swing for the fences. I'd rather take a chance on Baron than be stuck in mediocrity for another 10 years by playing it safe.



No guts, no glory.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

halfbreed said:


> 30% chance? Where did that "fact" come from?
> 
> Sometimes you gotta swing for the fences. I'd rather take a chance on Baron than be stuck in mediocrity for another 10 years by playing it safe.


Half you're talking to a guy who doesn't consider Baron a superstar, but says Vince Carter is.

He's quick to point out that Baron shot 4-19 last night, but ignores that Baron still accounted for half of the points of last night (22 points, 11 assists), he ignores that the Warriors had not won 10 of 11 before acquiring Baron. This was a team that was something like 22 games under .500 without Baron, and with Baron they are 14-7, that is over .600 basketball, and those wins are not "glorious triumphs" over doormats, those are wins over playoff teams.

He constantly brings up Baron's injury problems, and yes he has had them, he also has had 3 season where he's played all 82 games, so it's not unreasonable to think he could get back to that. I think being in better shape and not being on a team where he has to do the majority of the work is going to help him a lot in terms of getting healthy.

Furthermore he ignores the fact that had our team with Baron had gone on this kind of run (and there's no reason to suggest we wouldn't have), we'd be the #8 (possibly #7) seed in the playoffs.

Making the playoffs, WINNING, would do a lot more for this franchise than going after big name free agents and striking out every year.

This franchise put all of it's hopes last season on signing Kobe Bryant, we were "so close", hell fact is, even the Bulls had a shot, he personally had them come out and meet with him, and ultimately like us, they didn't get him. I don't see that as a moral victory, especially considering RIGHT AFTER that we offered money to Fred Hoiberg, Chris Mihm, and Deshawn Stevenson, and NONE of them signed with us, so my question again is if you can't even get role players like that, why the hell do you suddenly have the ability to reel in all-star players?

Ray Allen just publicly called us out saying he wouldn't play for us, so magically our reputation has been fixed in the past 2 years because we gave Mags and Brand $ and went after Kobe?

Apparently not.

I will continue to believe that the only way this franchise gets a superstar is via a trade, and Baron was our shot at a superstar.

This is a quote last night from Montgomery...

"Leadership," Golden State head coach Mike Montgomery explained. "He's a point guard that has the ability to make other players better. He's a true point guard."

Our team has a lot of talented players and Baron would have made our guys better, we have thumped the Warriors everytime we've played them this year, if Baron can do what he he's doing for them now, he would have made a world of difference for us, and hey I want a winner, I want to talk about playoffs, not about what free agents we aren't going to get, and who we're going to draft this summer and had we gotten Baron we would be winning and getting ready for the playoffs.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> 30% chance? Where did that "fact" come from?


Its actually a rather generous figure. If you go just by the facts, by the numbers, the odds are 0%, inasmuch as since the injuries started, 3 years in a row, he has yet to play in even 82% of the games any year, and total 65% overall. So saying that theres even a 30% chance that he will play in all games over a five year period is rather generous, wouldnt you say?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

You need to take a statistics class...

Baron Davis has played in all 82 games 3 out of the 6 years he's been in the NBA (this year being his 6th season). 

I'm sure you know fractions and 3/6 in it's lowest terms is 1/2, so for every 2 years he's been in the league, he has played a full season.

That means there's a 50% chance that in the next 2 years he'll play at least 1 full season so your 30% is not only far from generous it's completely incorrect.

If you based off 5 years (in other words coming into this season) the chances would be even better.

I have to say at least you are consistent about being wrong, and not having a clue about what you're talking about.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

arenas809 said:


> You need to take a statistics class...
> 
> Baron Davis has played in all 82 games 3 out of the 6 years he's been in the NBA (this year being his 6th season).
> 
> ...



I think the best way to prove who is right in this arguement is to see what happens next season. I think Davis might have been our last chance at a real allstar. I think he would have fit in perfectly. Having both Davis and Livingsotn in the backcourt would have made the clippers probably one of the best backcourts in the game, not to mention that livingston probably could have learned a lot from him. And if they kept Jaric, he could have been the back up, which have given them more bench stability.

Next season will sum up this arguement no matter which side your on. If the Clippers end up with no one next season. (Yes, Arenas we all know your stance on this, so you dont have to argue your point again.. ) If the clippers end up not getting Allen, Redd, or a allstar of that caliber, and end up with the same basic team.. And Golden State only builds on there newly aquired allstar and say they blow the clippers out, and totally kill them in the standings.. Then I think that will be the answer on rather or not we should have gotten him.

Yam, you have a lot more faith in Sterling than I do. Your views are not the same ones I share about him. I respect your faith, but I disagree with your reasons. Sterling is considered the Joke of the NBA for a reason.. And it isnt beause he makes good decisions.

I am hoping for the best, however I fear that this Clipper team might be fundementally the same next season, except probably Bobby Simmons less, and Jaric less. But still no allstar. 

As for Golden State? Right now they are better than some of the teams already making the playoffs, I am not sure I could say that about the Clippers because they simply cant win road games with any type of consistancey. Something that changes when you get a player like Davis, was evident that GS has won not only at home, but blown out good teams on the road.

All I can say is at the very least I hope we resign simmons, and Jaric (If cap permits), and I hope that we desperately get someone at the level we need. Although I'm short on faith, what the hell? Theres always hope right?


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Half you're talking to a guy who doesn't consider Baron a superstar, but says Vince Carter is.


Baron is no superstar. Im sure some are out there, but ive never seen an article call him a superstar in the terms of jordan, peirce, allen, bryant, etc. Hes just not there. But carter is in the media all the time as being a superstar and rightfully so. He has all of the things that make a superstar. 1. He is an uber freak athletically, can do things few people in the history of the game could do. 2. He brings fans to games just becuse hes playing in it. Road attendence is always up when his team comes to town, he is the main attraction. 3. Hes a gold medal winner. 4. hes the leading vote getter in all star votes for the usa, (6 time all star) 5. His jersey is a best seller. 6. His career average is over 24 points a game. 7. Career FG% at 45% 8. Career FT percentage at 80% 9. career 3 point FG% of about 40%. 9. He is actually considered a superstar by the media and general public. Not one of those things by itself makes you a superstar but all together, it would be hard to make an argument that hes not a superstar. Also using your near sighted viewpoint, you can say hes a big difference maker on the nets as far as wins/losses, especially amazing since the nets franchise player, Rj is out with injury. Now lets compare that to baron davis. 1. Is an above average athletic player, but doesnt have skills that set him apart from everyone. 2. Is not a big ticket seller for home nor road games. 3. Not played in the olympics. 4. 2 time all star. 5. Jersey isnt top 25, not even top 50 i believe. 6. Career average is 15 points a game. 7. Career FG% is 40% 8. Career FT% is 66%. 9. Career 3pt. % is 32%. 
So while carter has all superstar level numbers, davis doesnt even have pratically any of those. Hes a top 5 PG when hes healthy, but that doesnt make you a superstar. Its not the PG's job to be the superstar. Best PG in the league this year is nash, and im not sure i would call him a superstar though. Superstar PG's are rare in this league compared to SG/SF. Magic Johnson, probably jason kidd...



> he ignores that the Warriors had not won 10 of 11 before acquiring Baron. This was a team that was something like 22 games under .500 without Baron, and with Baron they are 14-7, that is over .600 basketball, and those wins are not "glorious triumphs" over doormats, those are wins over playoff teams.


How have i ignored that when i bring it up all the time? Actually one would think that they would be doing even better than that since they added his numbers, yet only lost claxton. Quit bad mouthing the clippers wins of late. They are winning with rebraca, simmons, kaman completely out, and jaric and ross out of some games, and when they play, are playing at about 70% if that. 



> he also has had 3 season where he's played all 82 games, so it's not unreasonable to think he could get back to that. I


Yet it is unreasonable to think he could. He could, but to say he will is unreasonable, since he did not have the chronic injury in those days that he does now. 



> Furthermore he ignores the fact that had our team with Baron had gone on this kind of run (and there's no reason to suggest we wouldn't have), we'd be the #8 (possibly #7) seed in the playoffs.


Wrong wrong wrong. First of all i have said that we would have won a few more games with baron daivs. But lets analyze that more carefully. 

The proposed davis trade with the clippers was davis for: Marko Jaric, Kerry Kittles, Chris Wilcox, and a first round draft pick. 

Ok, after the trade, davis started playing 2/27. That means the first game he would have played with the clippers would be on the 27th vs. the hawks. Clippers won that game. So so far, 1-0 with baron, 1-0 without him. Next game, 28th: Clippers lost by 1 point on a missed layup by simmons. Jaric and wilcox were non factors in the game, baron could have made the difference of one point. So far, 2-0 with baron, 1-1 without. March 3, clippers win 101-92 agasint dallas. WOuldnt have lost it with or without davis, so, 3-0 with baron, 2-1 without. Next game was a blowout loss to denver by 15 points. Baron at his playing level at the time would nto have been able to make up that much of a difference: so were at 3-1 with baron, 2-2 without. Next game a 3 point loss to the grizz. Would baron have made the difference? Hard to say. at that point, he still wasnt very healthy. Brunson that night started and went off for 9 points and 8 assists. Davis at that time for the warrirors had 9 points, 5 assists, 5 turnovers. Id say we still lose with davis that game, since brunson starting was more productive. SO, were 3-2 with baron, 2-3 without. Next game was a 9 point win agasint the lakers. We would have won that one either way. 4-2 with baron, 3-3 without. 

Next game was a 1 point loss to sactown. would he have made the difference? Hard to say. We would have had had wilcox 7 points and 4 rebounds in that game, also brunson had a game of 10 assists and 1 TO, while on the same night davis had 3 assists and 5 turnovers. Howver, lets give arenas the benefit of the doubt on this toss up and say clippers would have won. 5-2 with baron, 3-4 without. Next game they beat the bulls by 5. In that game, brunson starting had 11 points 8 assists 7 rebounds, 3 TO's 4/5 shooting. wilcox 2 points 2 rebounds. Davis that day had 8 points 7 assists, 5 TO's and missed 10 out of 12 shots. I say we lose this game if we had davis, because of his bad play and shots that night. So were 5-3 with baron, 4 and 4 without. Next game an 8 point win at orlando. Would have won that one either way, so were 6-3 with baron, 5-4 without. Next game, HUGE blowout loss to denver that we would have lost either way. 6-4 with baron, 5-5 without. Next game was an OT lost to sactown. Would have won with baron. so were 7-4 with baron, 5-6 without. Next game was a win against portland. Would have won it with or without, so were 8-4 with baron, 6-6 without. Next game 8 point win agasint the bucks. Would have won it with or without, so 9-4 with baron, 7-6 without. Next game 4 point win agasint washington, would have won it with or without him, so were 10-4 with baron, 8-6 without. Next 4 point loss to minny. Lets say we would have won that game with baron, so now were 11-4 with him, 8-7 without. Next a 10 point loss to the cavs on the 29th. Lets go out on a limb and say baron would have meant those 10 points, and the clippers win that game. 12-4 with baron, 8-8 without. Next game a 20 point loss to the superstar carter and his nets. Davis would have made it a 10-15 point loss probably. So 12-5 with baron, 8-9 without. Next is a 7 point loss at detroit. We would have lost that game without baron too sicne on that day, davis had a bad night for the warriors, plus jaric went for 24 points that we would not have had, so 12-5 with davis, 8-9 without. Next two games were atlanta and charlotte wins, which we would have gotten with or without him, so 14-5 with davis, 10-9 without. The san antonio loss lets say the clippers still lose with or without him, especially because of the fact that without kaman and rebraca, and wilcox, and simmons, and jaric, its doubtful the clippers could have pulled that one off. 

So where does that leave us? 14-6 with davis about the same the warrirors are, but we were 10-10 without him. 

If we traded for him, taking this huge risk, and went 14-6 with him, which is dang optomistic, our record would be 38-38 with 7 games left. The 8th spot you said we could take over is still sitting comfortable with a 42-32 record. Clippers would have to win all 7 games, and memphis would have to go a dismal 3-6 just to tie them. You say we might even have gotten the 7th spot. For that, wed have to win our last 7 games, and denver would have to lose about 7 in a row. 

So, yes we would have done better with davis this year, as i have said many times. But when you stop to take a look at it, it still, barring a miracle finish, would not have been enough for the playoffs. And youre still stuck with his salary and potential injury. Youve also let go of your most versitile player, and your biggest trade bait, as well as made sure you have no number 1 pick for the next 2 years.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> This franchise put all of it's hopes last season on signing Kobe Bryant, we were "so close", hell fact is, even the Bulls had a shot, he personally had them come out and meet with him, and ultimately like us, they didn't get him. I don't see that as a moral victory,


Bulls didnt have much of a shot, with their salary situation. Kobe sure loved being courted by jordans team though. He was never close to signing with them. Yes it was a moral victory because now everyone knows bryant was this close to signing with us until a last ditch effort by buss. Gives us respect, and shows that we can woo the best players in the nba. 



> AFTER that we offered money to Fred Hoiberg, Chris Mihm, and Deshawn Stevenson, and NONE of them signed with us, so my question again is if you can't even get role players like that, why the hell do you suddenly have the ability to reel in all-star players?


here you go ignoring again the facts. YOu cant use that logic. We went out and got ross, moore, rebraca, brunson, even N'diaye. What does that mean as far as getting big names? Nothing. If you say that we cant get hoiborg, thus we cant get allen, Thats like me saying, rebraca came here for less than other teams offered him, so we must be able to get anyone we want too for the same thing.



> Ray Allen just publicly called us out saying he wouldn't play for us, so magically our reputation has been fixed in the past 2 years because we gave Mags and Brand $ and went after Kobe?


and he also has said that he would consider playing for us. Reputation doesnt mean anything in this situation. If the clippers offer him max money, what is he going to say? "clippers dont have a history of offering max money so im not going there...uh...wait, theyre offering me max money, and um...they dont even have any major guys becoming FA's any time soon so...um....nevermind. "



> "Leadership," Golden State head coach Mike Montgomery explained. "He's a point guard that has the ability to make other players better. He's a true point guard."


Wow. You mean to tell me hes actually fulfilling his job description? A point guard who makes other players better? Incrdible. Does it also take montgomery to tell you that baron davis is a true point guard? So is rick brunson, but that doesnt mean much. Montgomery should have a lot higher words of praise, considering his only nba point guards hes coached are speedy claxton and derek fisher. 



> I want to talk about playoffs, not about what free agents we aren't going to get, and who we're going to draft this summer and had we gotten Baron we would be winning and getting ready for the playoffs.


No, as a matter of fact, we just as well might have not made the playoffs either. Not to mention the huge future injury risk in the future that would paralyize our organization.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> You need to take a statistics class...
> 
> Baron Davis has played in all 82 games 3 out of the 6 years he's been in the NBA (this year being his 6th season).


No, you need to take a statistics class. Baron now has a chrnoic, recurring injury, Something he didnt have in his first three years, which is part of the reason why its uninsurable, since it happened before he signed the contract. The variables thus changed, when you are giving a forcast of future production. 

If you would have ever taking a statistics clasee (not being sarcastic, im being literal), you would know that. During the first 3 years of his playing, he has a different set of variables, the chance of getting injured that nba players as a whole have, who dont have a history of injury. But as soon as he gets a serious chrnoic injury, you cannot say that he overall has a 50% chance of playing in all games. Because now the new variable that he has a chrnoic recurring injury has resurfaced. Thus you have to base the variables on what doctors say is the odds that the injury will make itself manifest again. So far, every single year since the injury, it has come back once/twice, and has even led to other injuries. 



> I have to say at least you are consistent about being wrong, and not having a clue about what you're talking about.


Before you go and say stuff like that, make sure youre not putting your foot in your mouth with misinformation like you just did.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> I think the best way to prove who is right in this arguement is to see what happens next season.


No, That is not right either. As i said, it doesnt matter what happens the next 5 years. There isnt even an argument, its a documented fact, that the clippers did not want to take the risk. Theres nothing to change the fact that the clippers would not, as most teams in this league, take a 70 million dollar risk. No matter what happens, they made the right decision at the time. Theres nothing that can say there was a more logical decision to make. If baron is MVP the next 5 seasons, they still made the right decision AT THE TIME WITH THE INFORMATION THEY HAD TO WORK WITH. If baron daivs career ends next year, that doesnt make their decision any better neither, because no matter what it was the right decision to make at the time. 



> Then I think that will be the answer on rather or not we should have gotten him.


Im not arguing that topic. Im arguing the clippers decision making process, and how they made the right decision at the time. Retrospect cannot come into play here, thats a seperate argument. Anyone down the road can say shoudla coulda woulda. We can say why didnt we draft amare instead of wilcox, or whoever we drafted that year, but at the time, it was the right decision. Just like this is. 

Were also talking about odds. The odds are davis will hurt the team hes with more than help because of his contract, and possibility of injury. 



> Sterling is considered the Joke of the NBA for a reason.. And it isnt beause he makes good decisions.


What decisions dont you like? You dont find it amazing how players who he got rid of never were themselves again in their career? You dont find it amazing how the only ones he has given big contracts to have all played superbly? Im not saying he builds championship teams, but the guy makes the right decisions on who to sign and not to sign and for how much.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I agree with Arenas. I said they should have traded for Baron when they could have given up Jaric, Kittles and Wilcox and they should have done it. Baron is the real deal. When he's on his game he's arguably the best PG in the game. However, his ability to score makes him a valuable asset to play with someone like Livingston. Sad that the ineptitude of the Clipper front office rears its ugly head again. 

"How's his back?" Apparently fine Elgin "Nipsy Russell" Baylor. Awful.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

HKF, if youre going to take that stance, what do you have to say about his contract though? Why didnt many other teams who could have gotten him, want him? If youre going to badmouth the clippers not getting him, then badmouth every other team in the league who could have gotten him too. The horents were giving him away, anyone could have had him. But the fact remains, not many teams want to take a big chance like that on an injury prone player with 70 million remaining on the contract. His back is apparantly fine? You judge this on the fact that for the first time in what a year or so he has actually played 4 weeks straight?


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> No, That is not right either. As i said, it doesnt matter what happens the next 5 years. There isnt even an argument, its a documented fact, that the clippers did not want to take the risk. Theres nothing to change the fact that the clippers would not, as most teams in this league, take a 70 million dollar risk. No matter what happens, they made the right decision at the time. Theres nothing that can say there was a more logical decision to make. If baron is MVP the next 5 seasons, they still made the right decision AT THE TIME WITH THE INFORMATION THEY HAD TO WORK WITH. If baron daivs career ends next year, that doesnt make their decision any better neither, because no matter what it was the right decision to make at the time.


It does matter if the Clippers have a history of never taking risks. Sometimes when we argue here about the clippers office and management, I think were talking about the Lakers, because the way you describe there decision making abilities, you would think they have 14 championships, and 29 trips to the finals. 

The real truth to that however is not so upbeat. GS, just like the Lakers, Just like the Clippers, were all aware of Davis. But both the Lakers and Golden state were more than willing to go after him because they knew if he did pay off he would be worth the risks. Sometimes the best management is the one that is willing to Risk it all on a player that is unpopular. Clippers learned a little of this by going after Bryant hasn't always been the most healthy player over the years, but I'll be damned if he wasnt worth it. 

Baron has a hefty contract. But he also has three healthy seasons. I dont consider this season to be all that bad when in realaity we all know he was sitting out he majority of the last games because he had personally requested a trade, and no reason to risk your trade bait. 

All I know is clippers could gotten him and still resigned Bobby Simmons. 

Davis/Livingston
Corey/Ross
Bobby Simmons
Elton Brand
Chirs Kaman

That would have been a mean back court, and strong front court. And those close games were we lost by 3 points seem very winable with Davis who loves to go for the clutch shot in the end of the game. 

Truth is, NO guts NO glory. Clippers need to figure out rather they want to go for glory, or stay medicore for the rest of there existance.

:cheers:


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> What decisions dont you like? You dont find it amazing how players who he got rid of never were themselves again in their career? You dont find it amazing how the only ones he has given big contracts to have all played superbly? Im not saying he builds championship teams, but the guy makes the right decisions on who to sign and not to sign and for how much.



Decisions expland far beyond just trading away there only good players at the time. It also has to do with luring in talent that is supposed to make an actual difference for the team, and not hurt the team. It comes to scouting new potiential talnet outside the draft, and not just draft sitting 24/7. Clippers have been very good at drafting players only to give them up once there contract expires. And the very last bottom line is the decision to spend more money or make more money. 

This is the first season I've actually seen Sterling try to spend money and go after key players. Thats why I'm so excited. His orginization has been everyone from Frobes Magizine, to Slam magizine. Every year sports illistraded does the best and worest teams and why. The Clippers are always one of the worest, and it always says "More interested in making an immiedeate profit, and less interested in winning". That has been Sterings game plan over the years. Thats fine, its his team and all.. But that is the reason other NBA teams laugh at the idea of Ray Allen playing for us. Because why would anyone want to play for us?

And decisions not even related to the players, how about whent he Pond offered he Clippers a new home, and they could have been the Orange County Clippers? 

I'm just saying his decisions as a whole have never made this team winners. Its easy to say he traded away expiring trash, although I argue that half of it wasnt expiring. But its hard to say he did much of anything else to make this team better, and the record shows it.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> It does matter if the Clippers have a history of never taking risks. Sometimes when we argue here about the clippers office and management, I think were talking about the Lakers, because the way you describe there decision making abilities, you would think they have 14 championships, and 29 trips to the finals.


Not at all. I never said they are perfect in all aspects. They are near perfect though in not making bad decisions on resigning certain players, and also when to say enough is enough with some. Again, i dont expect everyone to look at it the same way, but the bottom line is sterling has not made many bad decisions. Does that mean he has made other decisions that have meant championships? No, But again, im looking at it from a business perspective, and sometimes we forget this IS A BUSINESS. In business, if you have one of the most profitable businesses in your profession, do you take huge risks? Do you take 70 million dollar risks when youre making money? No. If youre going to make such a large investment, you do it on something thats more of a sure thing. ANYONE can get injured. However, at least you can have insurance vs. such injuries, unlike with baron's contract. 



> because they knew if he did pay off he would be worth the risks. Sometimes the best management is the one that is willing to Risk it all on a player that is unpopular.


Golden state is one of the only teams that could have traded for him, that had nothing to lose. With the contract situation they had, they were almost guarnateed west door mats for years to come. So, they trade for him...worst case sceaniro he gets injured, theyre pretty much back where they were already going to be anyways, minus speedy claxton. Best case scnario, no matter how remote it is, was that they can use a healthy baron to perhaps get into the playoffs in the future. The upside for them was more than worth it. Clippers on the other hand, even without davis might ahve gotten into the playoffs this year were it not for the injuries. If not, for sure, getting a superstar would put them over the hump. But the clippers have options, unlike the warriors. They have open slots to get someone in FA. They have tradeable commodities. 



> Bryant hasn't always been the most healthy player over the years, but I'll be damned if he wasnt worth it.


Bryant is a bonafied superstar. Perhaps even one of the top 5-8 who have ever played his position in the history of the nba, if not solid top 3 or 4. He also does not have a certain injury that is uninsurable, nor one that is career threatening, nor lingering. 



> But he also has three healthy seasons. I dont consider this season to be all that bad when in realaity we all know he was sitting out he majority of the last games because he had personally requested a trade, and no reason to risk your trade bait.


Meaningless. Len bias, hank gathers had healthy seasons, and then they died. Their healthy seasons mean nothing. What baron davis his first few seaons, what he did in the 3rd grade injury free mean nothing after you get a debilitating, reoccuring back problem. It changes everything. Davis was sitting out because he was injured. I dont even think he started playing right away with the warrirors, didnt even start at first, because he was still hurting. Look at his numbers the first few games after he was traded. It took more than a week for him to get back to a reasonable playing level. 



> And those close games were we lost by 3 points seem very winable with Davis who loves to go for the clutch shot in the end of the game.


Yes, but read my breakdown. Even by giving you guys the benefit of the doubt, and saying davis would have made the difference in those games, we still are out of the playoff race, best case scenario. 



> Truth is, NO guts NO glory. Clippers need to figure out rather they want to go for glory, or stay medicore for the rest of there existance.


I think discussions with dunleavvy were there start of sterling and baylor going after a superstar. That might have been a prerequesite for him coming here...such as them going after arenas (not a superstar, but a dunleavvy favorite), and then if not him, bryant the next year, if not bryant, allen/redd this year. Remember, sterling is running a business. If its not broke, you dont fix it. Sterling is not a huge basketball fan. He does this for the money. Now, take someone like cuban. Cuban will spend money on anything because he is in love with basketball. Its like the way CEO's run their companies. Take mcdonalds who are always taking big risks with ads, new products, new campaigns, etc. They have huge ups, but then they have huge losses some years for risks that dont pan out. Then take a company like in n out, quite possibly the greatest hamburgers ever. For DECADES, they have had the same menu, dont advertise much, and dont expand much. They dont have the resume that mcdonads has, but they have a sucessful cult following, and have always been profitable. 

As a fan, id LOVE to see the clippers take risks left and right...after all its not my money, right? But as a business analyst, i can understand the clippers organization , and what it has done. You may not agree with it, but at the end of the day sterling is still making bank, and thats whats important to him. Of course if fans stopped gonig to games, that would take away from his bank, and he would be forced to do something different, but he has always managed to make the team marketable, and somewhat entertaining. Now, hes brought in a big name coach, who has requested SOME changes in the way the clippers go after players. As long as sterlings profit goes up, hes definately down with it, and bringing a marketable superstar to the los angeles market even if it means giving a big contract is worth it to sterlign because that translates into millions of revenue. 

After researching more, i do see why sterling did not want to move to anaheim. THe market is bigger in LA, heck look at what happened to the angels. Just by changing their image to los angeles, they will get millions more in revenue.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> I think discussions with dunleavvy were there start of sterling and baylor going after a superstar. That might have been a prerequesite for him coming here...such as them going after arenas (not a superstar, but a dunleavvy favorite), and then if not him, bryant the next year, if not bryant, allen/redd this year. Remember, sterling is running a business. If its not broke, you dont fix it. Sterling is not a huge basketball fan. He does this for the money. Now, take someone like cuban. Cuban will spend money on anything because he is in love with basketball. Its like the way CEO's run their companies. Take mcdonalds who are always taking big risks with ads, new products, new campaigns, etc. They have huge ups, but then they have huge losses some years for risks that dont pan out. Then take a company like in n out, quite possibly the greatest hamburgers ever. For DECADES, they have had the same menu, dont advertise much, and dont expand much. They dont have the resume that mcdonads has, but they have a sucessful cult following, and have always been profitable.
> 
> As a fan, id LOVE to see the clippers take risks left and right...after all its not my money, right? But as a business analyst, i can understand the clippers organization , and what it has done. You may not agree with it, but at the end of the day sterling is still making bank, and thats whats important to him. Of course if fans stopped gonig to games, that would take away from his bank, and he would be forced to do something different, but he has always managed to make the team marketable, and somewhat entertaining. Now, hes brought in a big name coach, who has requested SOME changes in the way the clippers go after players. As long as sterlings profit goes up, hes definately down with it, and bringing a marketable superstar to the los angeles market even if it means giving a big contract is worth it to sterlign because that translates into millions of revenue.
> 
> After researching more, i do see why sterling did not want to move to anaheim. THe market is bigger in LA, heck look at what happened to the angels. Just by changing their image to los angeles, they will get millions more in revenue.



Clippers pull in decent amounts of money. Sure. But if Clippers would have picked up Davis, and made the playoffs and then got to say the second round.. They would have probably blew up. The lakers major profits wasn't in filling the standards, it was in player merchindise. Such as Shaq Jerseys, Kobe Jerseys, hats, jump suits, posters, head bands, etc. Clippers stuff doesn't sell like the other teams. Because they have no recognition or respect. You become a playoff team, and have people actually say that with an extra part you could be championship contenders, you profits would blow up. Lakers have spent more money than any other team in the NBA, do you think over the last just say 25 years they havent made WAY more than they put in? And do you think they would have made near as much money as they have made over the years if they only made the playoffs once in there existance?

Busniess and playing it safe isn't NBA busniess. Look at the Cav's owner. Though I think the guy is a moron for the firings, etc and changing the teams chemestry at this point in the season. Its obvous he is attempting to right out the gate get the pieces together to setup a championship dynasty around Lebron. 

He knows big money will come if you put Cleavland on the map for something other than just having one of the best up and comming players in the NBA on it.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Clippers pull in decent amounts of money. Sure. But if Clippers would have picked up Davis, and made the playoffs and then got to say the second round.. They would have probably blew up.


First of all, if they would have gotten davis instead of the warrirors, even if they did BETTER than the warrirors have with davis, it is VERY unlikely they would have made the playoffs (view my game by game analysis in an earlier post). Also, what has baron davis shown before Feb. that would give them the confidence that he would even be healthy for more than 3-4 weeks? 



> Clippers stuff doesn't sell like the other teams. Because they have no recognition or respect. You become a playoff team, and have people actually say that with an extra part you could be championship contenders, you profits would blow up.


Not a correct analysis. Clippers stuff has always sold decently. Youll see clippers jerseys more than 80% of other teams jerseys in music videos, etc. Winning does not equal jersey sales. It has to do with the market, and superstar players on the team. Number one jersey selling team is a terrible team: Knicks. Number 3 is a team who hasnt won in ages: Bulls. 4, another such team: Celtics. Even the nuggets is in the top 10 because of carmelo. 



> Lakers have spent more money than any other team in the NBA, do you think over the last just say 25 years they havent made WAY more than they put in? And do you think they would have made near as much money as they have made over the years if they only made the playoffs once in there existance?


Not sure what their profitability stacks up at. But they do have way high ticket pricse the last few years to help pay for the huge contracts of kobe and shaq. Also, your last question is a paradox. There is no answer to that question because it isnt valid. The reason they have been so marketable is the presense of 2 superstars almost always on the team. magic/kareem, kobe/shaq, etc. A team with 2 superstars does not miss the playoffs. 



> Busniess and playing it safe isn't NBA busniess.


Again, thats a matter of opinion. If you told that to sterling, he would respond to you, "well each year i have quite a few million reasons to say that its good nba business for me."



> He knows big money will come if you put Cleavland on the map for something other than just having one of the best up and comming players in the NBA on it.


He also reads the reports that are ALREADY talking about james bolting cleveland in 3 years if hes not happy with his supporting cast. Believe me, if sterling had the 2nd most marketable basketball player in the history of the game on his team, hed do everything for him as well.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm past reading the diatribes...

Again I'm going to look at facts, 15 points, 15 assists, and 9 rebounds in a win over Phoenix...

These guys are beating playoff teams, not just beating them, kicking their asses and this is not how they were playing before they got Baron.

I still believe with Baron we would have made the playoffs this year and that would have done a hell of a lot more for this franchise than some kind of moral victory of wasting time going for an all-star we're not going to get just so we can say, "hey we tried".

The Warriors fans are giddy, and they have good reason to be, 11 out of 12 wins, best team in California, they're already being looked at as a 45-50 game winner next season...


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> I still believe with Baron we would have made the playoffs this year


You are still ignoring the facts though. If you make that statement again, at least have the decency to give a game by game analysis of why you think they would have made the playoffs. I analyzed every game the clipper shave played since the, honestly with an opening mind, thinking there was an outside chance for the clippers to get in the playoffs. However, i found that even if we give baron the benefit of the doubt and say that he would have been the one thing that made the clippers win in about 4-5 of their losses the last 4 weeks, the clippers would still be WAY out of the playoff race, not even in the 9th spot.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Here is another way at looking at it. if the clippers would have won EVERY GAME IN MARCH, every game in april, every game in feb. after getting baron davis, in other words going 21-0, which of course is an impossibility, the Clippers would barely be tied for the 8th playoff spot. 

If they had done as well as the warriors have done with him (again a long shot, since the clippers are giving up more), the clippers would still be about 5 full games out of the playoff race. 

So, before i had said that the clippers could have forgotten about the future of the team, and forgotten about the money, to perhaps take one shot at the playoffs this year, however even that was something they probably knew they couldnt do, so no matter how you look at it, its a lose-lose-lose situation by getting davis, looking at the odds of the playoffs this year, the odds of getting a return on the investment on the contract over the next 5, etc.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

From ESPN.com:



> Classic Warriors: They roll the dice on a former All-Star who ends up playing out of his mind, turning the team around and screwing up their top-four lottery spot. When next year rolls around, he'll probably blow out his knee before Halloween. We need to chip in $5 apiece and buy Warriors fans a new team – they make Clippers fans seem fortunate by comparison.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

I guess it just depends on who you ask?



> This was as complete and satisfying a victory as the Warriors could have hoped for against the best team in the NBA. They ran ahead, fell behind, fell further behind, and stormed back with a rousing 37-point fourth quarter to shock Phoenix 127-119 on Friday night at the Arena in Oakland.





> Sure, Golden State won its eighth straight and snapped the Suns' six-game winning streak in front of a sellout crowd, but it was how they rallied that provided the biggest thrill.





> All the while, point guard Baron Davis was the constant -- there at the beginning and there at the end, barely missing a triple-double with 15 points, 15 assists and nine rebounds.





> Heck, the Warriors have not experienced this since 1994, the last time they won eight straight. Or 1975, when they won 11 of their last 13. They did both Friday because they beat Phoenix at its own breakneck game.


What good is the better pick in the lottery if you dont build on it, or resign your picks. Clippers come to mind... And Looking at golden state, its about the same.



> The Warriors say their remarkable improvement since Baron Davis' arrival is an extended preview of next season -- but the present is pretty intoxicating for the Warriors, who beat the team with the NBA's best record for the second time in three weeks at the Suns' own up-tempo, crowd-pleasing game.


Looks like every editor and writer has a different opinion of Davis. However, most Ive seen are very good.

Considering this is the first time in 30 years that Golden State has won 11 out of 13 games (Most games agisnt playoff contention teams), I'd consider Davis already pulling his weight around. I'd say he is worth the risk if you consider that Golden state hasn't really taken many risks at all (Like the clippers) in 30 years, and how many playoff games they win again? ::Shiver::

But I give up. You can hate him all you want. But when the Golden State Warriors beat the crap out of us next year, we will know why Baron Davis would have been a great pick up.

Sources:
http://www.sfgate.com
http://www.espn.com


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

The Warriors will get the last laugh.

They got Baron for nothing, they still have their lotto pick, they're kicking *** and all some people can do is speculate about when the guy will get injured again.

He's already vowed to get in better shape (one reason he's had the injuries was carrying too much weight) and he's got a supporting cast that he did not have in New Orleans, which happens to be a very similar cast to ours, in fact a cast that we beat up on all year, next season they will stomp us.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> Here is another way at looking at it. if the clippers would have won EVERY GAME IN MARCH, every game in april, every game in feb. after getting baron davis, in other words going 21-0, which of course is an impossibility, the Clippers would barely be tied for the 8th playoff spot.
> 
> If they had done as well as the warriors have done with him (again a long shot, since the clippers are giving up more), the clippers would still be about 5 full games out of the playoff race.
> 
> So, before i had said that the clippers could have forgotten about the future of the team, and forgotten about the money, to perhaps take one shot at the playoffs this year, however even that was something they probably knew they couldnt do, so no matter how you look at it, its a lose-lose-lose situation by getting davis, looking at the odds of the playoffs this year, the odds of getting a return on the investment on the contract over the next 5, etc.


Thats only accounting for the teams which we came CLOSE to winning. Theres no telling what would have happened in games were we got beaten and whipped like agisnt the Suns, Denver, Miami (The second time, ouch), etc.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Again, as i said, for golden state, it was 10 times worth the risk than the clippers. Golden state had nothing to lose. They have no shot at playoffs with the team they have locked up for like 5 years, theyre already paying up the ying yang on other contracts, they dont have their point guard of the future on their team, the only risk for them is money, which obviously they dont care much about after giving 80 million to adonal foyle and derek fisher. 



> You can hate him all you want. But when the Golden State Warriors beat the crap out of us next year, we will know why Baron Davis would have been a great pick up.


You STILl dont get it. When did i say i hate baron davis? I told you i have been a personal fan of his since we were in high school. (he graduated 2 years after me). He played with people in summer league from my school. I am a moderate UCLA fan. I like the guy. But there is nothing you or anyone else can say that will mean the clippers made the wrong decision at the time. Thats a FACT. Because the ONLY thing you could ever use is retrospect. Were not talking about retrospect. If we use retrospect, we would say that denver should have chosen dwayne wade instead of carmelo. We would say that 3 years ago, amare should have been taken first overall in the draft. But no one can ever say that at the time, denver picking carmelo was not a no brainer, that NOT picking amare first overall was NOT a no brainer. So saying oh, we will see down the road whether this was a right decision, etc. etc. is a completely DIFFERENT DEBATE. We are not talknig retrospect, how many times do i have to say. You can use retrospect on every move ever made by any team in the nba...but what were talking here, is the right move made at the time, with the information given, and the clippers, and every other team in the league who passed on baron, made that correct decision.

Heck, even if you wanted to talk about retrospect, we couldnt really talk about it "working out" for the warrirors until maybe 3 years down the road. Remember, at any time, he could have a severe injury, and even if he doesnt play the last 2-3 years of his contract, the warriors are still coughing up 50 million in those 3 years. 

If you want to talk about retrospect, lets talk about vince carter. THAT would have been the ULTIMATE deal for the clippers. Someone who is a bonafied superstar, not only on the court, but also in drawing fans, selling merchandise, etc. Someone who plays a position that the clippers actually need an all star at. Someone who actually shoots the ball well, someone who scores 25+ a night. If we got him at the time the nets did, we would probably be in 6th place in the playoff race now. But again, were not talking retrospect. In the carter situation, although it was a way better deal (any injuries carter gets are insured since they were not existing when he signed the current contract), at the time of the trade, there was too many questions about his ability and desire for the clippers to take a chance on him. I still would have liked to do it since his upside is way more than davis, he actually fit with the cilppers needs, and his downside contract and otherwise was way less.



> Thats only accounting for the teams which we came CLOSE to winning. Theres no telling what would have happened in games were we got beaten and whipped like agisnt the Suns, Denver, Miami (The second time, ouch), etc.


Yes there is. One player does not make up 15 and 20 points, especially when he is replacing 2 players, especially when you consider that due to other injuries that we have had, wilcox and jaric are very important, and when you consider the people he would have started over did not do too bad anyway in those gams. Also, if you read the above posts, you will see that even if the clippers went undefeated, they wouldnt be in the playoffs necessarily, and i dont think youre going to try to say that with davis they could have gone undefeated...


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

back on topic to baron davis, if that is what this topic is about....look for him to have a big game agasint the spurs tomorrow. Can you imagine how tired parker is after playing 4 games in 5 nights, and playing 53 minutes in tonight's game? Baron should go for a tripple double.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

At any point anyone can have a career threatening or season ending injury. It happens all the time. Shaun livingston had a majority of this season off because of an injury, this could have been three years from now when he was our "Go to guy". Am i going to hold his injury against him? No, I think he is worth the risk. Especally at the reasonible price. 

And I never ment to say you didnt like Baron Davis. I should have said that differently, that was my mistake. You are talking from a busniess stand point. I disagree with the Clippers Busniess politics (as a fan who pays for stuff, I think I, and all other fans should be able to voice are opinions rather they are honored or not). The clippers, have never had a glorious team? So dispite the fact you like there decisions, rather they are the right ones or not have an overwhelming amount of information in my favor. The clippers will never win anything unless they are willing to put it on the line and take risks. Rather it be Davis today, or someone tommarow for who knows what.

In retrospect, who have the clippers ever gone with and it worked out? :no: What was there big impact player they have ever taken a chance on in the last thirty years? The only impact players I can remember are hasbeens that were a year or two away from retirement. Can you explain to me how never going after anyone but Kobe Bryant is a good thing? Cause I cant seem to find a single season the clippers have ever had that said otherwise. And in Retrospect, assuming that hey what if this year, next year or the year after they don't get ANY allstar player to come here.. (Which is VERY possible knowing the Clippers), then would you have rathered they at least took a chance on a unjury prone allstar? Or is nothing better than anything?

And the Clippers had no chance in hell at getting VC. Simply because VC wouldnt play here. I garuentee it. He didnt want to play in Toronto.. And look what happened, he didn't really play. He wants to go to a team that theres at least a chance of build up and full support and commitment. Thats possible in NJ. As of right now, besides our clipper faith.. Theres no other reason for him to fathom it being possible here. 

We could have traded potatoes and chips and got Davis. As of right now if we even traded Jaric and livingston.. That sadly wouldnt hade made much difference in points because lets face it Livingston and Jaric dont account for very much when you look at the season as a hole.

And wouldnt you say that say davis 19 and 15 the other night, would have accounted for more points than Jaric and livingston combined in ANY of the games they have played this season together. If you do the math, it would easily. Thats the beautiful thing about a allstar with explosive talent, He gets you the points you need when you need it. At the times when no one else wants to step up and go for it. And Davis is NOT afraid to do that, and he shouldn't be, he can do it well.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> At any point anyone can have a career threatening or season ending injury. It happens all the time. Shaun livingston had a majority of this season off because of an injury, this could have been three years from now when he was our "Go to guy". Am i going to hold his injury against him? No, I think he is worth the risk. Especally at the reasonible price.


But were talking overall odds. First of all, Baron davis has a serious back problem that doctors have deemed potential career threatening, and also something that has a strong propensity to resurface frequently. Any players can get injured, but obviously a player who has that kind of injury is a bigger risk. Personally, i have a herniated disc. I still play basketball on the playground, but my injury has reasserted itself, and has a big possibility of doing so if i continue playing. Anyone who plays with me on the court could also get injured, but obviously i have a lot bigger chances of getting injured. The other big issue is the insurance factor. Baron had this injury when he signed the contract, which is why its uninsurable. Anything livingston had no injuries when he signed, and so do 90% of players when they sign contracts, they do not have a serious lingering issue, thus any injurues that occur during the contract ARE insured. 



> In retrospect, who have the clippers ever gone with and it worked out?


Many. Loy vaught, heck the rodgers/williams/barry for mcdyess trade worked well for 2-3 years. Getting bobby simmons for near minimum worked out, Q Ross worked out, brunson worked out, etc. etc. But, in all of those cases im sure we could also find someone better they could have gotten as well.



> What was there big impact player they have ever taken a chance on in the last thirty years?


Never said they have gone out to get someone...they never thought it nncessarry before. As i have mentioned 2 years ago is the first they have ever decided to go after a big name player. 



> Can you explain to me how never going after anyone but Kobe Bryant is a good thing?


Saves money. Sterling has been able to remaing profitable without having to get a superstar. Heck, the only time recently they did try to go after an all star was getting andre miller and we saw how terribly that turned out. But now i strongly believe, as does the media, that to get dunleavvy to come here, they had to do some things his way which was to go after all stars, possibly superstars to carry the team in the clutch and throughout the season. 



> And the Clippers had no chance in hell at getting VC. Simply because VC wouldnt play here. I garuentee it. He didnt want to play in Toronto.. And look what happened, he didn't really play. He wants to go to a team that theres at least a chance of build up and full support and commitment. Thats possible in NJ.


Now you just blew the credibility of your thread with this comment. Clippers had way more to offer than the nets, plus, LA is a more desireable place to play than toronto. With the nets there is no chance of bulid up and support...perhaps one of the worst teams in the league at that. WAY worse than the clippers this off season. All nets fans wanted to kill the GM and owners of the nets. The nets had a ridiculously strong nucleus in kittles/jefferson/kmart/kidd. But they gave away kittles, practically gave away kmart, and have kidd not want to play there anymore. not to mention giving up on even a lot of the role players there, in hopes to "trim payroll." Meanwhile the clippers have brand, magette, kaman, livingston, ross, etc. locked up for 4-6 years. 



> And in Retrospect, assuming that hey what if this year, next year or the year after they don't get ANY allstar player to come here.. (Which is VERY possible knowing the Clippers), then would you have rathered they at least took a chance on a unjury prone allstar? Or is nothing better than anything?


Hey in retrospect, i wish they would have done lots of things, but retrospect is so meaningless. Because it is what it is...retro-spect. "A review, survey, or contemplation of things in the past." Its completely meaningless. I could wish the clippers traded everything they had in the 84 draft so they could get jordan in retrospect. We could use retrospect on anything at all. 5 years from now if baron davis hasnt missed more than 5 games a season, while becoming a 5 time all star, of course, who wouldnt in retrrospect say the clippers would have been better off going after him? But the thing is, retrospect doesnt get you anywhere. You can only make the best decisions for the team with current information. 



> And wouldnt you say that say davis 19 and 15 the other night, would have accounted for more points than Jaric and livingston combined in ANY of the games they have played this season together.


Yeah, and the shots he missed in thet game are more than tthose same two have ever missed combined in one game. Bottom line is the clippers this year would not have been helped at all with davis for this year due to the fact that they were already out of the playoff race. The future with davis also would have been very bleak at best because of the salary and injury. 

No matter what happens, the clippers made the right decision at the time, and the decision that almost every other GM who had a shot at davis made. As clipper fans sometimes you want to see things happen that from a practical and business standpoint do not make sense. Nothing wrong with that. But no matter what, sterling and any other owner in the league will do whats right for himself and for the company. Clippers did that in this situation, and i doubt they will lose any fans over this decision. Even the ones most adamently agasint it, you guys, still post on this board, still watch the clippers games, still are clipper fans.


----------



## swift88 (Jul 4, 2004)

I think Iverson dropped 40ish and 10ish dimes several times. Baron is a great player, I'd love to have him as a Clippers.

But the Warriors are weird team, last year they made the same run at the end of the year


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> But were talking overall odds. First of all, Baron davis has a serious back problem that doctors have deemed potential career threatening, and also something that has a strong propensity to resurface frequently. Any players can get injured, but obviously a player who has that kind of injury is a bigger risk. Personally, i have a herniated disc. I still play basketball on the playground, but my injury has reasserted itself, and has a big possibility of doing so if i continue playing. Anyone who plays with me on the court could also get injured, but obviously i have a lot bigger chances of getting injured. The other big issue is the insurance factor. Baron had this injury when he signed the contract, which is why its uninsurable. Anything livingston had no injuries when he signed, and so do 90% of players when they sign contracts, they do not have a serious lingering issue, thus any injurues that occur during the contract ARE insured.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What did Loy get again? 
Bobby will work if we didnt just let him develop here, only to go to a different team and actually make a difference.
How did Rodney work out for us?

Those guys filled the holes in our roster, but did they take us to victory? 

And as for the Nets, lol. You crack me up. VC has a much better chance of flurishing over there than he does here. Plain and simple. You dont like it, take it up with Sterling he's the main reason. And Im not debating we had the money to give to VC, and the security. The problem is that we NEVER give players like VC the money they ask for, and we NEVER get the allstar. We have only had one allstar in recent times, and he isnt allstar explosing like VC. Your creadiblity is down the tubes, because you have shown that you simply can't fathom the fact that Clippers are not winners, have never really been winners, and unless they actually go after allstar talent, will never be winners. That isn't the same as being profitible.

Looks like giving Kittles away turned out good for them considering how much play we seen this year. 

Ok, he saves money? Than can we both agree that so far in clipper history he has been good at generating profits from the clippers, but poor at building teams? 

I guess the clippers have just always been in the wrong place at the wrong time, for 30 plus years. I'm sorry man you take apologist to a whole new level. And believe me, being a clipper fan I've seen some impressive stuff, but you work it man.

I wish I had your outlook though, I wouldnt be so jaded today.

:cheers:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Baron is destroying again tonight...

30 points, 10 assists?


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

arenas809 said:


> Baron is destroying again tonight...
> 
> 30 points, 10 assists?



Yeah, what a loser.... :biggrin:


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> How did Rodney work out for us?


Worked out fine until he thought he was in some kind of eating contest. That really was a weird trade. Worked great for a few years, but barry didnt improve, and rogers and williams both went pcycho. 



> VC has a much better chance of flurishing over there than he does here.


Maybe were talking about different things. Im talking about winning. Are you talking about just putting up big numbers? If you are talking putting up bigg numbers (flurishing), then yes he has a better chance there. But if youre talking about wins/losses, the talent the clippers have is way better than the nets. 



> The problem is that we NEVER give players like VC the money they ask for, and we NEVER get the allstar.


When is that an issue? Hes under contract for a few years, the money isnt the issue. And as you said when have we tried to get an all star? Only twice i believe, with miller whom we got, and kobe who we didnt. Not sure if i can count arenas, because at the time im not sure he was an all star. Not to mention the fact that one of the main reasons he didnt come here was becuase the cilppers couldnt decide if they wanted to keep odom, keep the money open for kobe next year, etc., so he just took the money from washington. 



> Your creadiblity is down the tubes, because you have shown that you simply can't fathom the fact that Clippers are not winners, have never really been winners, and unless they actually go after allstar talent, will never be winners.


Come on, dont make the same mistake arenas does by making up things in order to give creedence to your argument. HOnestly....when have i ever said that i think the clippers are winners, or were winners? And hasnt it been me for the last 2 years on this board (even well before your time), saying that we need a superstar in order to get to the next level? Now youre saying that ive been saying the opposite. I have not. 



> Looks like giving Kittles away turned out good for them considering how much play we seen this year.


Here you go again with retrospect. that means nothing...even you yourself were talking about how the management is doing. At the time, the fans were outraged of them letting kittles go for nothing, and them getting rid of kmart to save money. 



> Ok, he saves money? Than can we both agree that so far in clipper history he has been good at generating profits from the clippers, but poor at building teams?


Never said he was good at building teams. But again, without great teams, without superstars so far, he has been able to have profits, so from his viewpoint, hes doing alright. Why is he changing his philosopHy? I dont know. its not like profits are down, or fans are outraged and demanding change like the laker fans this year. But maybe hes just had a change of heart. Maybe he wants to win a championship and then flip off all the nay sayers. But im fine with it, as long as he doesnt take terrible risks. 

cant believe golden state lost tonight to an exhausted spur team, especially one not only missing duncan, but ginoblie and rasterovic too. Oh well. Baron kept them in it when they blew their leads, but they faltered at the end. With baron being such a good passer, i wish he would pass the ball more instead of taking so many shots. In the last few games hes averaging like 14 MISSES a game, which is more shots that most take in a whole game. I think he could put up nash like numbers if he didnt shoot so much.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> Worked out fine until he thought he was in some kind of eating contest. That really was a weird trade. Worked great for a few years, but barry didnt improve, and rogers and williams both went pcycho.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we are talking about different things. Rodney brought us nothing. He helped with our team in keeping it sub-par medicore, and another below .500 series of clippers history. 

Winning? Why do you think Ray Allen laughed at the idea of coming to the Clippers? Its because the Clippers have never been winners.. Refresh my memory.. Have we ever been winners? Why would anyone think it would change now? Because we threw some cash at Kobe Bryant? For all he knows, comming here would be the end of the building and then he'd get to hang out while the clippers let the team fall apart. 

No, you keep saying that you agree with the majority of the clippers decisions. And I said the majority of there decisions are the reason we have never been a really good basketball team. I never said you didnt say we should go after an allstar, this whole debate spawned from what type of allstar you think we should or in the case of Davis Shouldn't get. 

Stop with the retrospect crap. That is what basketball is. Its like a warped version of chess. People make sacrafices and hope that it's going to become worth it in the end. Lakers got ride of Shaq, and hope that building a team around Kobe will eventually lead them to a new dynasty.. It may or may not? Who knows for sure, but if you NEVER try it, you will NEVER know. The Clippers are famous for NEVER trying it, and never KNOWING. And thats why it will be extremly difficult for them to talk someone like Allen or Redd into comming over here no matter how good our talent is. Plain and simple. I hope we get an allstar this offseason, but would anyone really be shocked if we got a couple hasbeens instead? I wouldnt. 

I don't know if you watched the game or not, but Barons lack of passing is what got them into both double over times. That last minute shoot was just a damn good play, setup up by a great team of veterns. They have something to play for right now, and sometimes even without your best players it can make your team dangerous for all the right reasons. Tony Parker my be young, but he didnt get on the spurs because of his looks. Oh well though, I guess when your Davis and you bring a team to 8 straight wins and 11-13 for the first time in 35 years, I guess you gotta lose sometime right? 

And I'd take the the slightly below 50 percent shooting of Davis when he is hitting 38 points, including two clutch ones to put it into double OT, and has 6 rebounds... And 9 assists.. and 1 steal... and 2 blocks... Its no livingston or Jaric.. But I'll take it. :razz:

And considering there last Five games were against the sonics, the suns twice, the rockets, and and San Antiono, I would think that would be pretty tiring to......


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Forget signing guys like Ray Allen, Michael Redd, Kobe, etc...

Could we even get any valuable role players like Robert Horry? Cliff Robinson? 

Bobby Sura would have been nice last year...

No, we can't...

We basically are able to get scrubs, guys who were IR guys on other teams come because on our club they'll get minutes.

If all we're going to do is bring back Brunson and the rest of the clan next season, I don't really see us improving that much.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> I think we are talking about different things. Rodney brought us nothing. He helped with our team in keeping it sub-par medicore, and another below .500 series of clippers history.


For a few years he, williams, and barry gave us a lot more output than the player we traded for them, mcdyess did. Dont keep putting words in my mouth, i never said he made is big time winners or anything, but thsoe players made us a better team than what we would have been with just mcdyess. 



> Winning? Why do you think Ray Allen laughed at the idea of coming to the Clippers? Its because the Clippers have never been winners.. Refresh my memory.. Have we ever been winners?


Quit only doing one sided arguments Because i can just be as one sided, and say, "why do you think ray allen said that he WOULD consider playing for the clippers as he has.?" The nets with their current team will not have a chance at a championship. Carter still agreed to go there. You put baron davis on the same level as people like carter and allen, and he agreed to go to the warrirors. Are they big time winners? No, but he probably liked the fact that he was going to a team that wasnt looseing anyone to get him. Kmart wanted to go to denver. Are they a big time dynasty? Boozer chose to go to utah, and they have a low chance of doing much in the western conference. Its not alawys about winning. Its about money, its about talent surrounding, its about the city, there are MANY factors in which a player chooses to go somewhere. Winning is not the only thing. Its very rare that a player makes a decision on the SOLE reason of winning, such as a karl malone. 



> For all he knows, comming here would be the end of the building and then he'd get to hang out while the clippers let the team fall apart.


You do realize that the clippers core are all signed for many years to come, right? There arent that many teams int he league that have their main talent and their young talent signed for so long. 



> No, you keep saying that you agree with the majority of the clippers decisions. And I said the majority of there decisions are the reason we have never been a really good basketball team.


VERY wrong. Decisions mostly all worked out if you use your favorite tool, retrospect. The decisions the clippers DID NOT make is what you are using to say that the clippers havent been winners. I never said the clippers have made big time moves to make us winners. I say they have avoided wrong ones as far as contracts, and players on the decline. Dont make it seem like im arguing things which i am not. I only argue things that i pretty much cant lose on. Factual things. Not borderline stuff. If i were to say that sterling has made great moves that made the clippers winners, then i would lose that argument, so why try. 



> Stop with the retrospect crap. That is what basketball is.


No basketball is NOT retrospect. thats got to be one of the worst statements you have made apart from baron davis being a superstar before vince carter. basketball has nothing to do with retrospect for the simple fact that retrospect is the analysis of things past. When you make a decision, when you play the game of basketball, you cannot look at retrospect, because the decision you are making hasnt happened yet, and the consequences have not happened neither. When you get married you choose who you think would make the best wife. Youre not thinking retrospect, because you havent been married to her yet. 5 years down the road you can think to yourself if you made the right decision or not by marrying her, and that IS retrospect. 

Again, were NOT TALKING RETROSPECT HERE. If you want to talk about retrospect, it would have nothing to do with baron davis, nor future allstars that were going after. it would be based on deals the clippers have made 5+ years ago, and how they have turned out.



> The Clippers are famous for NEVER trying it, and never KNOWING. And thats why it will be extremly difficult for them to talk someone like Allen or Redd into comming over here no matter how good our talent is.


I disagree. Never trying what? Resigning core players? They have done that with the team they have. Never trying what? Going after superstars? They went after kobe last year, and the mere fact that theyre going after allen and redd, its not like they are going to say, "well you guys dont go after all stars, so i dont want to go there." Clippers do not have a big history of trading prime players in the middle of their contracts away as some teams do which also is a plus for people wondering if they will keep the team together. 



> I don't know if you watched the game or not, but Barons lack of passing is what got them into both double over times. That last minute shoot was just a damn good play, setup up by a great team of veterns.


I said he kept them in the game in the end of the periods, but im talkinga bout all of the misses during the 1st to third quarters. How many of those led to spurs baskets? if just a couple of those turned into assists, the game wouldnt have even gone to overtime. 



> And I'd take the the slightly below 50 percent shooting of Davis


As i said, all it takes is a couple less shots and the warriors would have won in regulation. Thats why the clippers had more luck than the warrirors, against the same team (except two starters stronger, nesterovic and ginobli) without one person getting 38 points because livingston, brunson, jaric, magette, ross, ALL of the back court in the entire game put together missed three LESS shots than baron davis did by himself. At the end of the regulations, of course you put the ball in davis hands to shoot though since not many else on the warriors have any kind of game saving experience. But i wasnt referring to those shots. 



> If all we're going to do is bring back Brunson and the rest of the clan next season, I don't really see us improving that much.


That right there is a terrible statement. Im hoping of course the cilppers can get allen, or redd, if not them, MAYBE a johnson or hughes, but if all they do is bring back this team, even a healthy kittles, or a replacement for him with their first round pick, you dont see us improving? You can only do that if you expect the same amount of injuries this year, which i cant see happening again. As dunleavvy said, he thought if livingston was healthy, even 10 games right there would have been won that the clippers didnt win. Let alone healhty kaman, healthy kittles/other SG, healthy simmons, healthy rebraca, healthy jaric, healthy everyone... Heck, even if we only have 1 or two major injures next year, wed still be improved. Not to mention the individual improvements the players will make. 

How can you not see improvement with the current group? do you think they will get worse? Look at bobby simmons improvement. if the other players have 25% of his improvement, we will be a better team with or without an allen or redd.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

yamaneko said:


> For a few years he, williams, and barry gave us a lot more output than the player we traded for them, mcdyess did. Dont keep putting words in my mouth, i never said he made is big time winners or anything, but thsoe players made us a better team than what we would have been with just mcdyess.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Davis missing? Well couldnt anyone in the league be held to that standard? Clippers lost by a couple points in double OT, and livingston missed a couple baskets.. In the fouth... So is he the reason they didn't win the game? No. The problem with your logic is that Baron Davis's scoring, even if it's sub 50% was the ONLY reason they were even in double OT, or the only reason they have won the majority of there games lately. Dispite his misses. He is the team go-to guy. Just like Kobe (Who has very similar shooting percentages, and misses) and you take the good an the bad. We'd all like a Kobe Bryant type player who shoots over 50% on a nightly basis, but the majority of allstars out there that are bangers or centers dont shoot that high. Wade, Bryant, Iverson, Reggie Miller (For the majority of his entire career), Steve Nash (Except for this year, because he drastically took less shots, and became more of a true role player), Lebron James, RAY ALLEN, REDD, etc all shoot below 50 percent. Some in the high 40's, most in the very low 40's to high 30's. That means they miss at least half or better the amount they make. And where does that happen? The basketball games. Some in the first half, some in the last half. You keep talking about retrospect, but then telling me not to use it. But what if Davis had made all his shots int he fourth is along that same line. He didn't, but he did make the shots to bring it to double OT, and almost won the game for a team who didn't even have a chance in hell at going double OT 2 with the spurs ever this season, with or without Ducan. 

Proof is in the pudding. He takes a lot of shots, and misses a lot of shots. Since he came they have been winning, before they came they were one of the worest teams in the leauge, now they are beating teams like the Suns, Sacramento, Dallas, and houston like they were nothing.

But I give up Yam. I'm going to agree to disagree on this one. In two-three years, if the past has repeated itself then it will be the same old song and dance. Hopefully we get someone like Allen or Redd in the offseason.

People use the past to help predict the future. So many people view the clippers many years of losing as an indication of the many years to come. Even positive thinking, and one offseason of going after Kobe isn't going to have people dropping the last 30+ years and thinking there is going to be a future. When people see more change, other than resigning your core players (Which the Clippers have done many times, only to trade them out two or three years later).


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Davis missing? Well couldnt anyone in the league be held to that standard? Clippers lost by a couple points in double OT, and livingston missed a couple baskets.. In the fouth... So is he the reason they didn't win the game?


Not many people are as good as PG's when healthy as baron davis. Top 5 undisputed. For those people, not even all of them are as good as passer as davis. THus, he should be held to that standard..you do what youre best at, and add in what your secnod best at. Hes best at passing, so so in shooting. Livingston cannot be held responsible for the loss because in the whole game he missed what, 3/4 shots? Only 2 of them turned into a deffensive rebound, none turned into a score. But out of 16 MISSED shots, how many deffensive rebounsd? how many scores for the other team?



> Just like Kobe (Who has very similar shooting percentages, and misses) and you take the good an the bad. We'd all like a Kobe Bryant type player who shoots over 50% on a nightly basis, but the majority of allstars out there that are bangers or centers dont shoot that high. Wade, Bryant, Iverson, Reggie Miller (For the majority of his entire career), Steve Nash (Except for this year, because he drastically took less shots, and became more of a true role player), Lebron James, RAY ALLEN, REDD, etc all shoot below 50 percent.


Never said baron davis needs to shoot 50%. But out of all of those players you mentioned there, guess who has the worst percentage shooting? Yep, you guessed it, baron davis by a wide margin this year. And none of them are as good as passers as davis, so all the more reason for davis to get better shot selection, and distribute the ball more. He has the potential to lead the league in assists without breaking a sweat. The PG should not be the high scorer on the team. How many championship teams had the PG be the high scorer? Lakers? Im just saying that i think baron could make himself a more complete player if he passes more, while working on improving his shot. 



> You keep talking about retrospect, but then telling me not to use it. But what if Davis had made all his shots int he fourth is along that same line. He didn't, but he did make the shots to bring it to double OT, and almost won the game for a team who didn't even have a chance in hell at going double OT 2 with the spurs ever this season, with or without Ducan.


Wrong. youre trying to twist what were talking about again. Two completely different topics, where the variables are completely different. One: decision making, Two: baron in the future passing more. how can you compare the two? Im not saying what if davis made all of his shots. The guy is a career poor shooter, and this year 37% or so. What im saying is he should pass the ball more until he can get his % up. Low % shooting means you cant shoot, or else take low % shots. 



> He takes a lot of shots, and misses a lot of shots. Since he came they have been winning, before they came they were one of the worest teams in the leauge, now they are beating teams like the Suns, Sacramento, Dallas, and houston like they were nothing.


so this means baron davis has reached is peak? He cannot be a better more efficient player? Im talkinga bout baron davis the player, and that he could even be better than he is by taking less shots, or at least just focusing on high percentage shots. Its not like he is a one trick pony, the guy can pass.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

Ok... ok... Whatever you say man. :biggrin:


----------

