# Clippers Trade in Retrospect...



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Even Donnie Walsh loyalists have to view the Clipper trade as a huge screw up in retrospect. Not only did we give up a 20-10 big man, along with a servicable role player for Tim Thomas but also did not have the foresight to ask the Clippers for the right to exchange draft picks. 

As much as Randolph's addition was suppose to improve the Clippers, did anyone honestly believe that they would make the playoffs outside the Clipper organization? The move was always something of a gamble and could have either paid huge dividends or blow up in their face. Injuries virtually gauranteed they would not make the playoffs. 

We on the other hand were in the hunt for the playoffs throughout the season and should have figured that the Clippers would have wound up with the better draft pick; lady luck would have them get the no.1 and have it 7 picks better than our own. Blake Griffin on the Knicks would have been huge and would have undoubtedly balanced the Randolph trade. This was a monumental screw up and very hard to deny given how much of a steal the Clippers thought they got; and how inconsequential the right to exchange picks would have been for them in that trade.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The knicks objective was to get rid of Zach Randolph and they got rid of him.There was no else who could have taken him from the knicks.If there had been some other provision about trading picks it would have come with protections....In particular it would have precluded the CLippers from trading the top pick in the draft or even a top five pick.Therefore this is all a lot of nonsense.The Clippers are a bad organization,but that doesn't mean they make every deal with a view towards crippling themselves and making the other team a powerhouse.

You got rid of Randolph...What the hell else did you expect from the Clips?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TwinkieFoot said:


> Even Donnie Walsh loyalists have to view the Clipper trade as a huge screw up in retrospect. Not only did we give up a 20-10 big man, along with a servicable role player for Tim Thomas but also did not have the foresight to ask the Clippers for the right to exchange draft picks.
> 
> As much as Randolph's addition was suppose to improve the Clippers, did anyone honestly believe that they would make the playoffs outside the Clipper organization? The move was always something of a gamble and could have either paid huge dividends or blow up in their face. Injuries virtually gauranteed they would not make the playoffs.
> 
> We on the other hand were in the hunt for the playoffs throughout the season and should have figured that the Clippers would have wound up with the better draft pick; lady luck would have them get the no.1 and have it 7 picks better than our own. Blake Griffin on the Knicks would have been huge and would have undoubtedly balanced the Randolph trade. This was a monumental screw up and very hard to deny given how much of a steal the Clippers thought they got; and how inconsequential the right to exchange picks would have been for them in that trade.


the wierd thing is they really are talented, they should be at least in the hunt for the playoffs even with their health issues.

that said , there is no way they trade picks without some sort of top 3-5 protection...but a pick in any way would have been nice even if it came a year or 2 from now.

the trade was bad for the knicks because it was 6-5 before the trade and 24-45 after it , the trade killed the team in so many ways.

1st morale, you trade away the 2 best players for a good player not as good as either(harrington) a guy who is not very good any more(tim thomas) and a guy who never even played (mobley)

2nd they killed the team's guard depth dealing jamal and mardy but not getting a usable guard in return, which led to burning out duhon.

3rd it really weakened the team in the boards , its really hard to run when you dont get steals or blocks but its nearly impossible to run consistently when rebounding is an issue.

4th when you make a trade of that magnitude you basically make the team start over without benefit of training camp.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I think this.....*

For Twink...I read that the Knicks tried to get a pick or a player (Gordon) and were even rebuffed asking for a 2nd. To say it was lack of foresight or anything else is merely your unsupported opinion, right? You don't really have any idea what was broached, do you?

Grinch...
1) Morale appeared to improve
2) Agree but they thought Mobley would play
3)Not really an issue..the team picked up the difference including Lee who increased his rate post-trade
4)Absolutely agree


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: I think this.....*



alphaorange said:


> For Twink...I read that the Knicks tried to get a pick or a player (Gordon) and were even rebuffed asking for a 2nd. To say it was lack of foresight or anything else is merely your unsupported opinion, right? You don't really have any idea what was broached, do you?
> 
> Grinch...
> 1) Morale appeared to improve
> ...


1) they went from 6-5 in their 1st 11 to 6-14 over their next 20...they went through the marbury fiasco and crawford was one of the more popular players on the team...

2) which is why they should have gotten a sweetener like when Zeke got a 1st rounder (nate) when Q's back wasn't insured, thats usually how its done or the trade is recinded...at the very least they should have kept Collins who went on to have a decent year in clipperland.

3) zach avg. 12.4 in 35 minutes as a knick this past season. harrington as a knick avg. 6.3 in 35 minutes...Lee didn't improve that much...and well in 2007-08 the knicks were -0.1 in rebounding margin...they were -4.0 last season. it appears zach's absense was significant there.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Diable said:


> The knicks objective was to get rid of Zach Randolph and they got rid of him.There was no else who could have taken him from the knicks.If there had been some other provision about trading picks it would have come with protections....In particular it would have precluded the CLippers from trading the top pick in the draft or even a top five pick.Therefore this is all a lot of nonsense.The Clippers are a bad organization,but that doesn't mean they make every deal with a view towards crippling themselves and making the other team a powerhouse.
> 
> You got rid of Randolph...What the hell else did you expect from the Clips?


The objective was to get rid of Zach but that doesn't mean you do so for a bag of potato chips. Did the Nets fleecing of Toronto for Vince Carter excuse Rob Babock (then GM) and their management for giving away a commodity for nothing tangible? No, it doesn't and should not in our case. As much as Zach is a problem child and assumed untradeable, he got moved and was traded once before. There will always be a market for a 20-10 big man, especially one that is just 26 years old and entering the final years of his contract (just 2 more seasons). Had we been patient, he could have been moved for something of substance.

When this deal was made, I feel like the Clippers clearly believed that they got the better end of it. I recall Mike Dunleavy publicly making those comments immediately following the trade. If that's how they felt, why would they add protection to the pick considering that they thought the move would put them in the playoffs or just outside of it?


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> the wierd thing is they really are talented, they should be at least in the hunt for the playoffs even with their health issues.
> 
> that said , there is no way they trade picks without some sort of top 3-5 protection...but a pick in any way would have been nice even if it came a year or 2 from now.
> 
> ...


The Clippers are talented but they have a serious issue with depth. Beyond Marcus Camby or Zach Randolph (depending on which forward they start), who comes off their bench that is of any notable significance? Despite that, I'm pretty sure they thought they were a Zach Randolph away from the playoffs. This is why the deal was made in the first place. If we pressured them, I still feel like the right to exchange picks would have been inconsequential since they thought they would have ended up with a better record.

I completely agree with everything you said about why the trade was bad but I believe your underestimating the significance of what we got back in return. We gave up something of worth for nothing and that can never be considered good business.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

*Re: I think this.....*



alphaorange said:


> For Twink...I read that the Knicks tried to get a pick or a player (Gordon) and were even rebuffed asking for a 2nd. To say it was lack of foresight or anything else is merely your unsupported opinion, right? You don't really have any idea what was broached, do you?
> 
> Grinch...
> 1) Morale appeared to improve
> ...


I do recall the story about us wanting Gordon but that was particularly unreasonable on our part. I never thought highly of Gordon but the guy was a lottery pick and filled a position of need for the Clippers. They were justified in not wanting to give him up, especially given the way he performed later in the season. We did, however, get a 2nd round pick included in the deal so clearly that was no biggie for the Clippers; as it should not have been.

I believe that my position is just. Of course I have not been privy to conversations between the Knicks and Clippers so I don't know what was really discussed. What I do know is that we did not get enough back in return and considering how inconsequential the right to exchange picks may have seemed to be then, I feel pretty confident Walsh never brought it into play.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I will continue to maintain*

That we were fortunate to rid ourselves of that contract and player. Until there is some evidence suggesting that we could have gotten more, I am happy with it.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

I just KNEW Donnie should have held out for more after Mobley couldn't play anymore.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4202667

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4202527

so the knicks did know at the time of the trade about mobley's heart condition...but weren't informed until the trade had already been agreed to and the clips and knicks were informing the league office about it.

every1 agrees now the knicks did the right thing for mobley in refusing to play him. Apparently the clippers believed the knicks were up to no good initially on that front.

the league knowing all of this now owes the knicks an injured player exception.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

maybe the knicks should consider reaquiring mardy collins ,

he is a good defender still, can guard 3 spots and as a clipper he shot .464 from 3 point range and shot .433 from the field , marked increases from his time as a knick.

it appears he just needed consistent PT , when he got consistent playing time (i'm not talking about spot minutes and then you are out before you really break a sweat) as a rook , he played well , and when injuries hit he got decent minutes as a clipper the quality of his play rose significantly again.

its something to think about.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> maybe the knicks should consider reaquiring mardy collins ,
> 
> he is a good defender still, can guard 3 spots and as a clipper he shot .464 from 3 point range and shot .433 from the field , marked increases from his time as a knick.
> 
> ...


I was thinking of the same thing myself but eventually came to the conclusion that that would not be possible. Collins is still under contract until next season (and likely have his option picked up for a 4th), so we can not outright sign him. I doubt the Clippers will give him up to us either, considering that Mike Dunleavy has professed how much he adores his game on several occassions (and rightfully so). Considering their lack of swingman/PG depth, I don't think they could get rid of him even if they wanted to.


----------

