# Some trade ideas



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Dang this board is dead on non game days. Bored as i am after an incredible suns/spurs game, ive come up with some trade ideas. 

First off, there are rumors that the suns will trade johnson for dalenburt. If the suns would really be willing to do that, what about this?

Phoenix trades: SG Joe Johnson (15.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.5 apg in 39.0 minutes)
Phoenix receives: PG Lionel Chalmers	(2.0 ppg, 0.9 rpg, 1.5 apg in 11.1 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -3.5 ppg, +0.5 rpg, and -1.1 apg.

L.A. Clippers trades: PG Lionel Chalmers	(2.0 ppg, 0.9 rpg, 1.5 apg in 11.1 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
L.A. Clippers receives: SG Joe Johnson	(15.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 3.5 apg in 39.0 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +3.5 ppg, -0.5 rpg, and +1.1 apg

Wilcox would allow amare to move back to PF, and he fits perfectly into their system, perhaps more so than dalenburt. Plus they get an emergency PG. Clippers would get johnson who can take the place that kittles was supposed to this year, during his injuries, and also the clippers almost never would have a SG/SF drop off anymore, when simmons and magette have bad games.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Boston:

L.A. Clippers trades: SG Kerry Kittles (6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
PG Marko Jaric	(11.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 6.4 apg in 35.5 minutes)
L.A. Clippers receives: SF Paul Pierce	(21.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 4.3 apg in 36.2 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -5.7 ppg, -4.9 rpg, and -4.8 apg.

Boston trades: SF Paul Pierce	(21.7 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 4.3 apg in 36.2 minutes)
Boston receives: SG Kerry Kittles	(6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
PG Marko Jaric	(11.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 6.4 apg in 35.5 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +5.7 ppg, +4.9 rpg, and +4.8 apg.


Boston: Time to start over...they can build around Wilcox, possibly use jaric to replace payton, then have 10 million to go out and play next year from kittles contract. 

Clippers: Get a go to player, possibly not that much passed his peak. Local guy to boot.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

The 1st is a nice deal but I don't think there is any way that the Suns will consider that deal. The 2nd deal with Boston, is an interesting one. Pierce could be a type of player that could help the Clippers both on the court and in attendance. 

Good way to make conversation on slow days. :greatjob:


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Golden State:

L.A. Clippers trades: SG Kerry Kittles (6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
PG Marko Jaric	(11.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 6.4 apg in 35.5 minutes)
L.A. Clippers receives: C Dale Davis	(2.1 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.7 minutes)
SG Jason Richardson	(21.5 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 3.6 apg in 37.4 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -3.8 ppg, -1.1 rpg, and -5.0 apg.

Golden State trades: C Dale Davis	(2.1 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 0.5 apg in 14.7 minutes)
SG Jason Richardson	(21.5 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 3.6 apg in 37.4 minutes)
Golden State receives: SG Kerry Kittles	(6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
PG Marko Jaric	(11.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 6.4 apg in 35.5 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +3.8 ppg, +1.1 rpg, and +5.0 apg

Warriors: Decide that the future is not richardson...they get their PF/C that they can build the team around, get a PG, and a player who can score possibly 15 a game for them in replacement of richardson, plus 10 million to play with next year. 

Cllippers: Get a player with not that huge of a contract, but who can be a consisten 20 point scorer, and STILL they would have the expiring contract of davis that they could play with next year.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

What I don't understand is, is that you're the same dude who didn't want to trade for Baron Davis, even if he could help the team win?


----------



## Kekai (Jan 12, 2005)

I like the first. I wish we could get Wilcox.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Weasel, i wouldnt think so either, but ONLY if it is true the rumors that say they are willing to give up johnson for dalenburt. If you put wilcox in the east, he would be putting up better numbers than dalenburt i would think. 

But if the dalenburt rumor is false, then too, this deal would have no chance.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> Golden State:
> 
> L.A. Clippers trades: SG Kerry Kittles (6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
> ...


You're forgetting Golden State has Troy Murphy already and has Biedrins waiting in the wings to be the 5. This one would never happen.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

I wonder if the Clippers threw any deals for aquiring Carlos Arroyo. He was dealt pretty cheaply and rumors were a lot of teams were interested in him. He would fit nicely on the Clippers team. Even when Livingston starts to start Arroyo and Livingston could have switched both G and PG.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> What I don't understand is, is that you're the same dude who didn't want to trade for Baron Davis, even if he could help the team win?


I said that the chance of clippers making that deal were very slim due to current needs and past history. Among many reasons, his injury concerns, the fact that they have livinston at that position with 5 years invested in him, the andre miller bad taste in the mouth, the need for a go to SG/SF in the dunleavvy offense as opposed to a PG, etc. etc. The old post on it has all of the reasons, and most of those came to fruition when the clippers denied that they were even considering that deal.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> You're forgetting Golden State has Troy Murphy already and has Biedrins waiting in the wings to be the 5. This one would never happen.


Yes, but when wilcox really broke out this year was when he was playing center. I think biedrins is a few years away from being the same player wilcox is/can be.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Lakers:

L.A. Clippers trades: C Mamadou N'Diaye (0.8 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 0.0 apg in 3.8 minutes)
L.A. Clippers receives: SF Luke Walton	(1.0 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 1.0 apg in 8.1 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +0.2 ppg, +0.7 rpg, and +1.0 apg.

L.A. Lakers trades: SF Luke Walton	(1.0 ppg, 1.7 rpg, 1.0 apg in 8.1 minutes)
L.A. Lakers receives: C Mamadou N'Diaye	(0.8 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 0.0 apg in 3.8 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -0.2 ppg, -0.7 rpg, and -1.0 apg.

I say n'diyaye plus a number 2 pick. 

Lakers: With Divac injured, lakers need size in case of emergency foul trouble. Walton cant even get PT with bryant injured. When bryant and george are playing he slides even further down the bench. 

Clippers: Now they have another option at SG/SF instead of just ross (when kittles is injured). He also is much more of a creator, and can perhaps start doing creative assists, alley oops, give and gos, etc....things that we dont see even from the clipper PG's these days. not to mention that his father is an ex clipper, and hes a fan favorite.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Bucks:

L.A. Clippers trades: SG Kerry Kittles (6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
C Zeljko Rebracca	(3.5 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 0.3 apg in 12.2 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
PG Marko Jaric	(11.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 6.4 apg in 35.5 minutes)
L.A. Clippers receives: C Daniel Santiago	(1.3 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 0.0 apg in 13.5 minutes)
SG Michael Redd	(22.1 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 2.5 apg in 38.6 minutes)
SF Keith Van Horn	(13.6 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.6 apg in 30.5 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +6.1 ppg, -1.0 rpg, and -5.3 apg.

Milwaukee trades: C Daniel Santiago	(1.3 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 0.0 apg in 13.5 minutes)
SG Michael Redd	(22.1 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 2.5 apg in 38.6 minutes)
SF Keith Van Horn	(13.6 ppg, 6.3 rpg, 1.6 apg in 30.5 minutes)
Milwaukee receives: SG Kerry Kittles	(6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
C Zeljko Rebracca	(3.5 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 0.3 apg in 12.2 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
PG Marko Jaric	(11.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 6.4 apg in 35.5 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -6.1 ppg, +1.0 rpg, and +5.3 apg.


Bucks: Decide they cant resign redd as has been rumored, get rid of a terrible contract in van horn, giving them about 13 million to play with next year to build around wilcox and mason. They also can resign jaric in case ford never can come back.

Clippers: Get one of the purest shooters in the league, a go to guy (of course only if they can have some kind of agreement that he will resign) They get van horn with his terrible contract, but he can still put up numbers and different positions. And they get santiago just to have a big body in there to join brand, moore, kaman, and nidyaye.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Twolves is really a team that is ready to deal, but i cant think of any deals that would work. 

Seattle:


L.A. Clippers trades: C Zeljko Rebracca	(3.5 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 0.3 apg in 12.2 minutes)
SG Kerry Kittles	(6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
PG Marko Jaric	(11.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 6.4 apg in 35.5 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
L.A. Clippers receives: PF Nick Collison	(3.9 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 0.5 apg in 13.1 minutes)
SG Ray Allen	(23.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 4.2 apg in 40.5 minutes)
Change in team outlook: -3.1 ppg, -5.9 rpg, and -4.7 apg.

Seattle trades: PF Nick Collison	(3.9 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 0.5 apg in 13.1 minutes)
SG Ray Allen	(23.9 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 4.2 apg in 40.5 minutes)
Seattle receives: C Zeljko Rebracca	(3.5 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 0.3 apg in 12.2 minutes)
SG Kerry Kittles	(6.3 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 1.8 apg in 22.1 minutes)
PG Marko Jaric	(11.0 ppg, 3.6 rpg, 6.4 apg in 35.5 minutes)
PF Chris Wilcox	(10.1 ppg, 5.1 rpg, 0.9 apg in 23.5 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +3.1 ppg, +5.9 rpg, and +4.7 apg.


This is more of a fantasy trade. The only way it would happen is if all of a sudden seattle went into a huge loosing blitz (which they kind of have started), and then decided that they dont want to sign allen to max money at his age, and thus want to build around lewis, and a front court of wilcox, swift, fortson

Clippers would do it just for allen, nough said.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

None of these ideas even warrant any further discussion.


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

The old Baron Davis to Clipps idea sounds better to me...


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Hehe, shows how much you know about the clippers needs, and their history. 

Unless the hornets were going to practically give him away, the clippers i dont think ever took that deal very seriously. 

I do NOT see the clippers acquring a PG as the final piece to their puzzle. Thats why you dont see any PGs in the trade above. Livingston is the PG of the future for the clippers. Only way i can see them getting a PG is if they trade jaric for someone with an expiring contract soon like cassel or someone. Someone who could teach livingston the ropes a bit better than jaric. 

Every one of those trades i proposed makes sense for both teams given that the variables are true. Those are the only feesible ones i could think of...i exmained the roster of every team. If someone has any better scenarios that would be accpeted by the CBA, and makes sense for both teams given a set of existing or possible variables, post them here.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

jaric for skita and a 2nd rounder


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

thats a tough one. Only way i would do that trade is if livingston and kittles were healthy. But i would llike to see what skita can do when given minutes...if he can be half the player he was in the summer league he could help the clipps


----------



## sipclip (Jan 21, 2005)

Jaric is worth alot more than Skita right now and he is a guard which is what we need. Plus Skita is an unrestricted free agent this summer who we can go after if we want.


----------



## Dynasty Raider (Nov 15, 2002)

It's been made pretty clear to me that we are sticking with OUR guys, and I'm pretty pleased with that decision.

We can't continue year-end and year-out making decisions based on the moment's need. At some point, we must make a decision to keep guys long enough for them to know each other --- to develop chemistry.

We have a good group of guys. If they are able to play the way they have been WITHOUT the same team for most of the season, just think how good they will be next year. Especially, with the guys being confident that management has confidence in them. Although we've had several injuries this year, I don't believe our guys can be labelled injury-prone and that is more than can be said about some of the guys you all keep mentioning was trades.

This may be a lost season as far as the playoffs go, but I'm OK with that because we have a HUGE future. How many losing teams can say that. We were not suppose to be contenders this year anyway. 

Sit back, enjoy the bumpy ride and look forward to this team growing together. They have what it takes to get us there.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>nbanoitall</b>!
> jaric for skita and a 2nd rounder


Go away.

You've been spitting for this bull**** all over the site and it's stupid.

You'd be lucky to get a sandwich for Skita at this point.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Jaric is worth alot more than Skita right now and he is a guard which is what we need. Plus Skita is an unrestricted free agent this summer who we can go after if we want.


Dang, completely forgot that denver had not picked up his option. Yeah, no trade unless its for chalmers.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

your not keeping jaric or simmons, cuz your team wont pay for them. Doesnt that just suck for u. nobody is gonna make the clips any serious offers. Odom, miller, richardson. And soon to be jaric and simmons are 5 terrific reasons why they shouldnt


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Wrong. The only way that jaric and simmons wont be kept is if they clippers spend on a max player, thus not having any room to sign them. Or if they want some ridiculosu salary that they dont deserve (a la olowokandi, etc.)


----------



## sipclip (Jan 21, 2005)

Jaric and Simmons are going to be here for a long time.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> Wrong. The only way that jaric and simmons wont be kept is if they clippers spend on a max player, thus not having any room to sign them. Or if they want some ridiculosu salary that they dont deserve (a la olowokandi, etc.)


how many of you said that about Q last summer. I remember quite a lot. Statistics and the past tells us that the Clipps likely wont match high dollar deals. I'll bookmark this thread so I can laugh when the clips dont resign most of their players....again.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Shows how much, or shall i say how little you know. 
Most of us predicted EXACTLY what was going to happen last year. Clippers were going to go for the max out go to guy they wanted. They didnt get him. So, what do they do? give up for the next 5 years at getting a max out guy? No, they sign someone with an expiring contract so taht they have another shot this year at a max out guy. Qrich you cant even compare to simmons and jaric. Simmons and jaric are MLE level players at most. You can sign someone to the MLE and still have room for a max guy. Cant do that with someone like Q. 

Like i said, unless simmons and jaric get greedy like olowokandi did, they will most likely be back. 

Also you have no idea what you are talking about...clippers wont match high dollar deals? What happened with magette and brand? And what does that have to do with simmons and jaric? Neither is a restricted FA next year so there is no matching. 

Laugh all you want, but youre the one who suggests trading our best pg PLUS a pick for someone who is an unrestricted FA, and youre the one who is a fan of a team right now looking up at the clippers in the standings. Jokes on you. :yes:


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> 
> Also you have no idea what you are talking about...clippers wont match high dollar deals? What happened with magette and brand?



there is a salary cap min., so they kept brand and let odom go. Maggette doesnt have a high dollar deal, he is a bargain. The Clippers could have matched Q and he could be on the team right now. Q is also an excellent value. I'm sure he could have gotten more from a team like the hawks. The joke would be on me if you had a history of winning or retaining players. The joke is on you guys for watching a team that wont spend on the majority of their free agents. You know the guys I dont have to bring them up, you know how your teams have done in the past, i dont need to bring that up. I think Sterling is playing a joke on every one of you. The day jersey's dont sell, and people dont go to the games, is the day sterling has to spend money on players.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Ok, now youre just getting silly. Yeah, the only reason they got brand was because they had to get a salary cap minimum. Please. 

Magette still has a multi million dollar deal, way more than what simmons or jaric would get. 

Odom was let go because they needed to keep room to get kobe, everyone knows that. They picked odom to let go because he was the pothead who was injury prone. 

Again, Q was not an excellent value since the clippers need a max space slot open so that they can get someone like kobe, allen, etc.

Clippers have a history of keeping players who can be very productive for them, and getting rid of players who are too greedy, or who are on the decline of their career. Recently, the new trend is also to let excellent role players like odom and Q go, in hope to get the go to guy they have wanted for a couple of years. Clippers have a long history of this. Manning, Vaught, Murray, Kandi, Wright, Taylor, etc. etc. The only ones who were let go never were the same player as they were with the clippers, and/or were asking for too much money. 

Sterling has done an excellent job.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> Ok, now youre just getting silly. Yeah, the only reason they got brand was because they had to get a salary cap minimum. Please.


Otherwise they would have moved him for some draft picks. Its profitability. If there wasnt a cap min. There would be years Sterling would go under it.

Maggette makes 45 million over 6 years


Wilcox will get a deal as good as that
Simmons will get a deal almost as good as that
Jaric is worth say 6 years 30 mill.

Wilcox is a goner. And dont expect both simmons and jaric will be around either. Especially if a guy like McCants gets drafted, you can kiss Simmons goodbye


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

WHy dont you quit while youre behind? You just dig yourself deeper and deeper into a hole, and your lack of knowledge of this team and its history just becomes more and more evident. 

Sterling has been nothing short of a geinus with his decisions so far of when to let players go, when to sign them. His track record id say is at least 85-90% the right decision in the long run the past 15 years which is amazing. 

Clippers always said they would match brand. 

If wilcox gets a deal for 45 million over 6 years, it sure wont be from the clippers because he is not worth that money yet, and barely worth half that to the clippers due to his lack of defense, and the fact that he would always have to play behind brand and kaman. Also is simmons asks for that kind of money, he had better ask it from another team, because the clippers are not dumb like denver, golden state, etc. and overpay players. 

I have always said that i hope that wilcox would be traded, because he doesnt fit into the clippers offensive and defensive scheme, and if we keep moore, he is not needed. if hes not traded, fine, we have a fine backup player for the next couple years, then just let him go, but i would like to trade him since he has a lot of attractiveness, especially to run and gun, or eastern conference teams. 

Its almost like you know you sound dumb, so you dont even have a point anymore when you post.. I have said that the only way simmons and jaric are not going to be around is if A. They are greedy and ask for more than theyre worth, or B. the deal that they make (or plan to make) to get a go to player impedes them from resigning both of them.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> 
> Sterling has been nothing short of a geinus with his decisions so far of when to let players go, when to sign them. His track record id say is at least 85-90% the right decision in the long run the past 15 years which is amazing.


What dont I understand about the Clippers and Donald Sterling. Profit Margin first, winning second. You defend a guy that is bad for the game. We talk about how bad this player or that player is, cancer this and hater that. They day i spend any money on clippers gear is when they decide to spend $$$ and actually compete.
We can bring up their track record if you want. Lets compare it to any other team in the league. Donald Sterling isnt serious about winning.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> Jokes on you. :yes:


you want to laugh at something. here u go.

04/05
25. Los Angeles Clippers $45,170,768

03/04
28. Los Angeles Clippers $38,351,724

02/03
29. Los Angeles Clippers $42,768,280

01/02

29. Los Angeles Clippers $33,849,932

00/01
29. Los Angeles Clippers $29,606,188

99/00
29. Los Angeles Clippers $22,489,343

98/99
28. Los Angeles Clippers .... $29,990,000

97/98
29. Los Angeles Clippers .... $24,493,625

96/97
16. Los Angeles Clippers ... $26.04 million

95/96
26. Los Angeles Clippers ... $21,165,000

94-95
Los Angeles Clippers ....... 17,876,700 22. out of 27

disqusting, but very profitable


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Is that the Clipper payroll or how much money Sterling has been making? Cause if Sterling is making that kind of money on a losing franchise, something is very wrong.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Payroll.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

look at the rank 29's, which is dead last.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

Hilarious. nlameitall continues to set himself up for ridicule with dumb posts. 

Sterling is not bad for the game. If more owners were like him, there wouldnt be players being over paid, terrible contracts, and just an overall downgrade of the game since money situations have put a choke hold on a lot of organizations. You still neglect to show any tangible evidence where he has negatively affected the game or the clippers. I have shown many instances where his moves have helped the clippers, and kept them from having a player on the downside of his career, etc. 

That is GREAT stuff you posted there on the salary. i dont know if any of those years (maybe 1,2?) the clippers had the worst team in the leauge, but yet they had one of the lwoest salaries int he league. This year, theyre near the bottom, yet are at .500 in the rankings, and really if you consider we havent used kittles much this year, and he makes 10 million, were actually in last place again. Excellent.

Sterling has always been about business, and winning. He has done a great job in keeping talent that helps the team, and letting losers and greedy guys as well. You think that by posting salary that that shoes that sterling isnt committed to winning?no. shows the opposite. 

What are the two ways to get an inflated salary? 1. have a superstar or two on the team that makes big bucks. 2. OVER PAY role players like foyle, fisher, and so many other people in this league. 

Clippers dont have a superstar although they have been trying to get one the last few years. and 2. unlike other dumb owners, sterling does not overpay players.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> If more owners were like him, there wouldnt be players being over paid, terrible contracts, and just an overall downgrade of the game since money situations have put a choke hold on a lot of organizations. You still neglect to show any tangible evidence where he has negatively affected the game or the clippers.
> 
> Sterling has always been about business, and winning.


You still neglect to show any tangible evidence of winning. And quoting a playoff birth, isnt gonna get it done. The reason the NBA owners are the way they are is due to competition, which is kinda how the free market economy works here. By not spending money proves exactly what ive been saying. You cant ever become a contender if your always at the bottom of the barrell in your spending. Its just not possible. You gotta stop talking about how great Sterling is because he's only a great business owner, not a great NBA owner. There is a difference, Sterling treats the NBA like any other business. He doesn't have the passion to win just the passion to make money $$$. If my favorite team always spent zilch on players every year, I'd be pissed. All Clippers fans should be pissed about this.

I like Maggette I'm not a hater, I just cant stand people defending Sterling. just look at those numbers, you say wow look at how cheap he was and his teams werent even the worst team in the NBA, and I say, yea so what they damn sure werent anywhere near the top.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

What do you mean i havent shown tangible evidence of winning? Thats got to be one of the most assinine comments youve made in this thread, and thats really saying something. Who ever said there was evidence of the clippers winning? Certainly not me. Do you think Im going to create illusions when until now i have only been discussing fact? 

You did not contend the argument of only two ways of being at the top of the salary list. You are definately smoking something. The warriors spent like 80 million or so on foyle and fisher...does that mean they are going to start winning games? Look at new yorks payroll, where has it gotten them? 

Spending has nothing to do with winning unless youre spending on superstars. paying fisher and foyle 80 million, as opposed to paying for someone like ray allen for 4 years and 80 million...spending is the same, but the output is way different. Sterling has been looking for someone to give max money to. Last year it was kobe, this year allen, maybe redd, or someone else. In order to keep room to get someone like that, you have to manuver your salary cap flexibility. If the clippers would have resigned odom last year, no shot at kobe. If they would have resigned Q this year, no shot at a max player for another 5 years. 

Sterling is a great busines owner and nba owner. I can barely find a blemish on his record compared to all of the tough decisions he has made. One of the only faults i find with him is letting elgin convince him to give up darius miles in exchange for andre miller. 

Your posts continue to show a complete lack of knowledge of how the nba works, let alone lack of knowledge of the Clippers.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> Who ever said there was evidence of the clippers winning? Certainly not me.
> 
> Sterling has always been about business, and winning



Then you dont know what you wrote obviously. If you never spend that means you never can acquire or keep the talent. One cant win championships or compete at 45 million a year on the books. Its just not possible. You might get lucky and draft a couple of talented guys, but they will just leave in a few years.

You just wrote Sterling has always been about winning. There certainly isn't any evidence to back it up. But you damn well wrote it. In terms of competing in the NBA sterling is a failure.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

I think if simmons keeps playing the way he has been playing he might be worth a little more than the clippers would allow. Same for Jaric. I hope they find room in the cap, or that the players dont sell themselves out. Because this team really could use those two next year.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> Then you dont know what you wrote obviously.


No, youre the one who is making things up. Thats why you should use quotes. It saves you from looking ridiculous by saying people say things when they dont. 



> If you never spend that means you never can acquire or keep the talent. One cant win championships or compete at 45 million a year on the books. Its just not possible.


You really are deaf to the voice of reason arent you? You seem to think that spending money means that you can win championships. I told you the only two ways to spend money. The clippers have been TRYING To spend money on the right guy to bring this team over the hump...so since they have been unsuccessful, that means they go waste their money on role players? Didnt think so. 



> You just wrote Sterling has always been about winning. There certainly isn't any evidence to back it up.


You mean manuvering the salary cap this last few years to get a superstar? You mean dumping scrubs? You mean not paying people like olowokandi 10X as much as they deserve? Thats called doing things to give your team a better chance at winning. have the wins come? No, because we have not been able to accomplish our goals yet, especially on getting a marquee star here. That doesnt mean that we are dedicated to loosing though. Bush is dedicated to making the economy better he claims. However the economy continues to go into the tank due to war, and other things. Doesnt mean he is purposely trying to make the US dollar devalue against foreign currencies.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>yamaneko</b>!
> 
> 
> No, youre the one who is making things up. Thats why you should use quotes. It saves you from looking ridiculous by saying people say things when they dont.
> ...


what are u blind? go back and read, you wrote donald sterling is about winning. you did, you cant take it back :laugh:


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

Keep this friendly.
You can argue all you want, just don't insult each other.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

No before you all go assuming I'm a hater, listen to this. I dont hate the Clippers I just dont have any faith whatsoever in the owner. Of course I've backed that up with facts, via previous historical data, which i can go back even further on if pushed. The Clipps dont have a short term history as el cheap, they have a long term one. I think its hilarious how a clipper fan actually beleives, and wrote in this thread that Sterling is about winning. And then he denied ever typing it. Well it was a good plan, but you cant take it back now. Look at history, i can go back even further. 

Jerry Buss vs Donald T. Sterling


Lakers. Clippers. Same town. Same game. Same league. But when it comes to tradition, these teams have less in common than a polo match and a soup line. Picking on the Clipps may be relentless and cheap, but sometimes you just have to pick that scab. And this time, we follow the river to the source -- all the way up to the owner's box. Laker's owner Jerry Buss vs. Clippers owner Donald T. Sterling, the bachelor dentist versus the prince of overpaid apartment complexes. Let's see how they stack up at the Tale Of The Tape: 

WINNING TRADITION: 

BUSS: 25 NBA Finals, 12 championships

STERLING: Most 60 loss seasons in NBA history, nine, for you kids scoring at home. And they say Dimaggio's 56 is untouchable!

ADVANTAGE: Clippers


WHAT THEY'VE BUILT: 

BUSS: A perennial contender

STERLING: A way to charge big league prices for a hamster-wheel of humiliation

ADVANTAGE: Lakers


WHAT THEY ENVY IN EACH OTHER'S BASKETBALL TEAMS: 

BUSS: The cap space of the Chicago Bulls

STERLING: The won/lost record of the Washington Generals

ADVANTAGE: Lakers


DELUSIONS: 

BUSS: Secretly thinking he looks like Kit Carson.

STERLING: Secretly thinking that "basketball" is Latin for "lost leader."

ADVANTAGE: Push


TEAM TRAVEL: 

BUSS: First class

STERLING: Priceline.com

ADVANTAGE: Lakers


TEAMS OFTEN FEATURED ON: 

BUSS: The NBA Game of the week

STERLING: Ripley's Believe It Or Not

ADVANTAGE: Lakers


THE STAPLES CENTER: 

BUSS: is the main reason it was built

STERLING: is the main reason they can't book pro wrestling there more often

ADVANTAGE: Lakers


WHY THEY ORDERED A BAN ON CELL PHONES: 

BUSS: Players were fielding endorsement offers during team meetings

STERLING: Players were trying to engineer trades during timeouts

ADVANTAGE: Push


WHAT THEIR LUXURY BOXES INCLUDE: 

BUSS: Prawns, caviar, opera glasses

STERLING: Zantac, barf bags, some good books, cyanide

ADVANTAGE: Push. Luxury is relative


FAN APPROVAL RATINGS: 

BUSS: Hovering near sex and syndication money

STERLING: Dangling near tax preparations and deep rectal spasms

ADVANTAGE: Lakers


WHAT FANS GET FOR THE MONEY: 

BUSS: A container

STERLING: Virtually no wait at valet

ADVANTAGE: Clippers! This is LA, where parking is the holy grail


HALL OF FAME GMs: 

JERRY WEST: Is the best talent evaluator in the game

ELGIN BAYLOR: Is such a regular at the lottery, the Commissioner just asks if he wants the usual...Then serves him an underachiever.

ADVANTAGE: Lakers


BUMPER STICKERS: 

BUSS: If the owner's box is rockin', don't come knockin'

STERLING: I lost more talent than the Chicken Ranch

ADVANTAGE: Push


HOW THEY RE-WROTE WILL ROGERS: 

BUSS: Never met a man who wouldn't pay a grand to sit courtside

STERLING: Never met a team he couldn't deduct.

ADVANTAGE: Lakers

So there you have it. In a Dream Team vs. a Micronesia Landslide, the advantage goes to Dr. Jerry Buss and the Lakers, which only adds to my private pain as I remember that the Clippers were once my hometown Buffalo Braves. I'm Nick Bakay, reminding you, that the numbers never lie.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> what are u blind? go back and read, you wrote donald sterling is about winning. you did, you cant take it back


You are completely twisting the argument, even lessening the little basis you had to even be arguing. You had insinuated that i said the clippers have a history of winning. In case you forgot, here is what you said:



> You still neglect to show any tangible evidence of winning.


Then i said why would i try to show evidence that doesnt exisit? Then we went into an argument of how you feel sterling doesnt want to win. Dont be combining things trying to make it seem like you know what youre talking about. 

Why deny that i said sterling is about winning? Ive said it twice, ill say it again. Sterling has done a great job with what he has to work with to make the right moves. Even with baylor screwing things up now and then, sterling has done the best with what he has. Hes made great decisions that have helped the franchise, and saved the franchise. 

Now what have you lowered yourself to? Plagerizing other assinine comments made by other people? Have you run out of material?

Thats it, at first it was funny watching you stick your foot in your mouth time after time, but now its getting boring. You want to talk facts and numbers about this franchise lets go. 

Start naming bad moves sterling has done, specifically, and i will counter with a rebuttal/acceptance on it, plus counter with at least 2 good moves that he has done. You cannot argue with facts, so lets hear it. No name calling, no plagerism, no off topic banter....lets talk player movement. Lets talk salaries, lets talk business.


----------



## nbanoitall (May 21, 2004)

yamaneko, quit trying to hide what you said.

I QUOTED YOU SAYING Sterling is about winning. Those are your words. You wrote them on the page.

I wrote, you still neglect to show tangible evidence of winning. 

You said Sterling is about winning. I said prove it. I've posted salaries of the team for the last several years. I can go back further if needed. Actually it is pretty simple. My basis of support is Sterling never ever went out and put a good team together because he never never was competitive salarywise. Top free agents arent interested in LA because its considered the dungeon. You do your time so u can get out.

I'm in a clippers fan board and not one person has come to your defense on this. If I was in the denver room and you insulted stan, and i criticized you, I'd get backed up. Thats the difference.
You made a false statement to defend the fact that I dont believe sterling will retain several of your key free agents. I dont believe he will pay 13 mill for redd, and Allen may very stay a sonic. Thats my bet.

The fact is most posters on this board wont be surprised if sterling lets free agents go, especially if they command money. Wlicox is worth what i said. Sterling wont match it. Jaric could get some nice offers, sterling wont match them either. Simmons is the guy after doing my homework he mostly likely retains. 


Just admit it. Your post about sterling is wrong. Its safe to assume most fans belief sterling isn't about winning. Lets take a poll in the nba room.


----------



## Darth Bryant (Feb 1, 2005)

I think the sad thing to this whole arguement is a team that you think doesnt care enough about winning to get the talent in there to stay is still beating your team. :laugh: 

Yeah Denver has definately built some dynastys over the years. 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/statitudes/news/2003/01/06/statitudes_0107/

I know that report was a whole year season ago, but looks like that aspect of the nuggests havent improved much this season.

But it sure looks like the owner of Denver is commited to winning.


----------



## yamaneko (Jan 1, 2003)

> yamaneko, quit trying to hide what you said. I QUOTED YOU SAYING Sterling is about winning. Those are your words. You wrote them on the page.


What is your problem? I have said now 4 times that sterling is about winning, and theres nothing to hide about that. Why do you say im trying to hide it? I sure hope any of your friends arent openly homosexual. Youd probably harass them day in and day out about trying to hide it, when in actuality they came out of the closet years ago.  



> I wrote, you still neglect to show tangible evidence of winning.


And what does that have to do with anything I have posted? I also have not shown any evidence of cows on the moon, but then again i never said they existed in the first place so who cares?



> You said Sterling is about winning. I said prove it.


I have many times. Reread the post. he has made the best decisions for the franchise based on the variables he has to use. I have given specific instances of this, and have challeneged you to give specific instances of the opposite, and you have been unable. Instead you banter on about salary cap, etc., which in actuality argues MY SIDE of the argument!! It shows that sterling has not choked the organization for years with big contracts, minimizing their flexibility to sign guys that could help the team, a la a max player. Do you know why you have been unable to counter the logic of the two reasons to have a huge salary? Its because its the truth, and you know it. 



> I'm in a clippers fan board and not one person has come to your defense on this. If I was in the denver room and you insulted stan, and i criticized you, I'd get backed up. Thats the difference.


No, son, you dont get it. The difference is a couple of things. 1. No clipper fan is as immature and dumb enough to go on another message board like you have and make themselves and fellow fans look ridiculous. Second of all, most of what you are posting here is so dumb, that the fans here do not even want to waste your time arguing with you about it. The only reason i do it is because i actually get comic relief from people like you, and this is some of the most fun ive had in a while. 



> You made a false statement to defend the fact that I dont believe sterling will retain several of your key free agents. I dont believe he will pay 13 mill for redd, and Allen may very stay a sonic. Thats my bet.


Ill have to check to see if the starting salary on a redd max contract will be 13 million or not ( i thought it was more around 7)..but even if it is, and allen is not available, sterling will go for it unless he seems something better on the horizon for next year. Personally, i think redd could be the answer...i dont even know about 06's free agents so dont know who is possibility there. 



> The fact is most posters on this board wont be surprised if sterling lets free agents go, especially if they command money.


Of course not. Everyone on here knows that if the FA's are offered money that will keep sterling from making this team a winner (getting a max player), he will let them go. Why be like denver and handcuff your options for the next 6 years (more on that later). 



> Wlicox is worth what i said. Sterling wont match it.


Wilcox is on the team barring a trade this year, and next year, and most likely the next year as well because of his contract. Now, lets say in 2006 or 2007 hes offered a big contract...would sterling match? Not if wilcox is playing like he is. You do realize that wilcox is like 3rd/4th string on the cilppers and gets a lot of DNP's, right? You expect us to pay 20-40 million for someone who cant crack our top 10 rotation? But a lot can happen with him in 2-3 years, so who knows. 





> Just admit it. Your post about sterling is wrong.


Dont you find it funny that after i challenged you to come up with specific moves sterling has made to show hes not about winning, you were unable to come up with even one? Challenge is stil open. I doubt youll take it because you know you have NOTHING, but putting it out there again makes you look even sillier than you do already.

Im trying to analyze the source of your mindless posts. Could it be anger that even though your owner has spent millions more (which according to you, makes you championship ready), the nuggets are still looking up at the clippers in the standings? Could it be that the clippers can go out and get a max player at any time thanks to the genius flexibilty of sterling, but that the nuggets are so locked down for the next 6 years because of contracts, that not only will they be over the salary cap, eventually, but they also will have trouble resigning nene in 2, and also carmelo in 3 without making a trade to help? Perhaps you were emotionally abused as a youngster? I dont know, but whatever the case, keep it up...its fun for all of us.


----------



## Weasel (Oct 18, 2003)

Sorry I am closing this. It looks like the both of you are insulting each other.


----------

