Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Andre Miller and Clipper free agents

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    ... Stars are rare and the Clips haven t had any (I don t remember the early to mid 80 s, but I think T. Cummings was there), as you point out. They did have
    Message 1 of 5 , Aug 1, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "harlanzo" <harlanzo@y...> wrote:
      > no, I think brand and miller are keepers. (olowokandi is probably
      > not at the max). But to write off sterling as a cheapskate ignores
      > that he was correct on most of his decisions. I am not saying he
      > runs a good team and that he could do some things differently but I
      > would be very wary paying too much for q richardson, maggette,
      > olowokandi, mcinnis & miles (who are gone already), and even the
      > stars brand and miller.

      Stars are rare and the Clips haven't had any (I don't remember the
      early to mid 80's, but I think T. Cummings was there), as you point
      out. They did have a star coach in Larry Brown, though. Now, both
      Miller and Brand are stars or the closest thing to potential stars
      that I can remember them having. If they pay those guys and fill in
      the parts around, they can be good. You don't mention Odom,
      interestingly. And neither did I.
    • Michael K. Tamada
      On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, harlanzo wrote: [...] ... Good points, although team context means a lot also. Players will perform differently and appear different
      Message 2 of 5 , Aug 1, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, harlanzo wrote:

        [...]

        > Overall, Sterling has been pretty right about not paying for talent.

        Good points, although team context means a lot also. Players will perform
        differently and appear different depending on their role on a team.
        Harper's probably the best example, he really was a legit all-star level
        player with the Clips, but knee injuries slowed him down and when he went
        to the Bulls his job was to be a big defensive guard. But he was Clyde
        Drexler Lite with the Clips (and was showing that talent at Cleveland too,
        before he was traded to the Clips -- 23 ppg as a rookie.)

        Manning and Smith were also players who truly were at all-star level --
        but marginal all-stars, and certainly not all-pro level (ie. the
        difference between say Detlef Schrempf vs Shawn Kemp in his prime -- they
        were more Schrempf-like than Kempian). Put into other contexts, they can
        become non-all-stars or appear to.

        But you're right that many of the other players definitely were not star
        level players. Vaught was starter quality, but as a below average
        starter. Mo Taylor never impressed me.

        > Barry and Wright seemed ok but only at the right price. I know a lot

        Yeah, Wright's a decent role player but nothing more. Barry never
        impressed me with the Clips either. Of course since coming to Seattle has
        had some amazing efficiency stats. So he turned into a starter quality
        player, possibly an above average starter.

        > of these guys do not seem great today but the players seemed to have
        > the same glow of potential that a lot of the guys the clips have
        > today do. Does this mean Sterling should let all these guys go too?
        > no, I think brand and miller are keepers. (olowokandi is probably
        > not at the max). But to write off sterling as a cheapskate ignores
        > that he was correct on most of his decisions. I am not saying he

        He was correct not to pay them as if they were all-pro players. E.g.
        Manning was the first player drafted, and he did have a good career, but
        was never a guy who deserved to be paid like an all-pro.

        But that doesn't mean Sterling was correct to let them walk. Manning may
        not have been an all-pro but he was marginal all-star level.

        > runs a good team and that he could do some things differently but I
        > would be very wary paying too much for q richardson, maggette,
        > olowokandi, mcinnis & miles (who are gone already), and even the
        > stars brand and miller.

        The current paradigm in the NBA is that you need to have at least one
        ultra-superstar, preferably two, to win a championship. And the rest is
        just supporting cast. Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem, Jordan. With help of course
        from Kobe, David Robinson, and Pippen (Hakeem amazingly managed to win
        with nothing but supporting players).

        The trouble with the Clips (and with most teams) is that even their best
        playes are not at that ultra-superstar level. Brand is very good, but
        he's not Bob Pettit, and the Bulls traded him away because they perceived
        that he was an all-star level player but not ultra-superstar. Miller's
        not at that level either (although he's young and developing and still has
        a chance to reach that level).

        So the Clips roster, even if Sterling keeps his talent and lets those
        youngsters mature, is probably not a championship roster.

        But does that mean that Sterling would be right to let his talent walk, as
        he did with his early 1990s talent? I don't think so for two reasons.
        First, very few teams have championship level talent. Just because
        you're not the Lakers doesn't mean that your team is a failure and you
        should bust up the team and let the talent walk. Second, who's to say
        that the ultra-superstar paradigm will continue to be the correct one?
        There have been teams that have won championships without ultra-superstar
        talent, the 1979 Sonics being the most well-known example (not a single
        Hall of Famer on their roster). But I'd put the Pistons in that category
        also: Isiah's a Hall of Famer and arguably was an ultra-superstar, but
        I'd put him more in the all-pro category -- he was never an MVP for
        example. Those Pistons teams won by having great depth of talent,
        rather than just having 1 or 2 ultra-superstars.


        So Sterling should not pay his talented roster as if he's got a bunch of
        all-pros on that roster. You are correct that they're not. But he does
        have what appear to be a number of future marginal all-stars, or better,
        and he'll have a good team (maybe not a championship one but a good one)
        it he keeps them together. Getting Miller was a good move. Figuring out
        what to do with Olowokandi, and how much to pay him, is the tough
        decision, as we've mentioned before. His price will almost certainly
        exceed his true contribution level. But if Sterling doesn't pay him, he
        risks a domino effect and losing much of his young talent.



        --MKT
      • harlanzo
        ... bunch of ... does ... better, ... one) ... true, but looking at past history almost all these players was over paid compared to actual contributions.
        Message 3 of 5 , Aug 1, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
          >
          > So Sterling should not pay his talented roster as if he's got a
          bunch of
          > all-pros on that roster. You are correct that they're not. But he
          does
          > have what appear to be a number of future marginal all-stars, or
          better,
          > and he'll have a good team (maybe not a championship one but a good
          one)
          > it he keeps them together.

          true, but looking at past history almost all these players was over
          paid compared to actual contributions. Sterling probably could not
          have locked up manning or charles smith at fair prices. so isn't
          probably better to let them go and start over? It would be nice if
          he would pay them to have a decent team but if you assess the
          situation in all or nothing terms its sterling probably comes out
          ahead profit wise starting over cheap than paying a lot for a decent
          team.


          > But if Sterling doesn't pay him, he
          > risks a domino effect and losing much of his young talent.
          >
          maybe but i think the players understand they can't all be paid and
          thus that someone would have to go. Still, you are right that there
          is something disheartening, to clip fans (if there are any), about
          letting everyone go even if it's the right decision.

          dean, I completely forgot about Odom, whom i think is really good
          when he plays. he is potentially better than all of them but I have
          no idea whether or not they should keep. I guess its just a function
          of cost.

          >
          > --MKT
        • mikel_ind
          ... one ... amazingly managed to win ... Of course, there was only one Hakeem. But I d rate Drexler in 95 as equal to Pippen, outside of Pip s best 3-4
          Message 4 of 5 , Aug 1, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Michael K. Tamada" <tamada@o...> wrote:
            > The current paradigm in the NBA is that you need to have at least
            one
            > ultra-superstar, preferably two, to win a championship. ... (Hakeem
            amazingly managed to win
            > with nothing but supporting players).

            Of course, there was only one Hakeem. But I'd rate Drexler in '95 as
            equal to Pippen, outside of Pip's best 3-4 years. And in '94 it was
            Otis Thorpe, as good as Horace Grant -- outside of Grant's best
            couple of years.

            Then you had Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, and Sam Cassell in the
            backcourt; Mario Elie and playoff monster Robert Horry at forward.
            This all makes the Rockets a deeper team than the Bulls ever were.

            >
            >... the Clips ... best
            > players are not at that ultra-superstar level. Brand is very
            good, ... but not ultra-superstar.
            >... who's to say
            > that the ultra-superstar paradigm will continue ... teams that have
            won championships without ultra-superstar
            > talent, the 1979 Sonics ... the Pistons in that category
            > also: Isiah's a Hall of Famer and arguably was an ultra-
            superstar ... >

            Etc.

            Now whatever happened to plain old run-of-the-mill superstar? It's
            superlative inflation, I say!

            I have a numerical cutoff for superstar, allstar, basic star, etc.
            They are nice round numbers in my "T#nd#x-like" system.

            I have also come up with Megastar and Ultrastar (I may get them mixed
            up occasionally). Isiah was a borderline-superstar at best, though
            he could get it going, in playoffs especially.

            Ultrastars of the Jordanesque variety are rare -- indeed, no other
            guard comes close. Wilt, Kareem, David Robinson, and Shaq have
            reached that level, along with MJ himself. Karl Malone grazed that
            plateau.

            Megastars have been Bird, Magic, Barkley, Ewing, Hakeem, and now,
            Duncan. McAdoo was a maybe, and Oscar.

            This is a pretty thin list, the players who have gone beyond the
            superstar level.

            Other undisputed superstars have been Mikan, Pettit, Baylor, West,
            Archibald, Lanier, Erving, Walton, Gilmore, Moses, Bernard King,
            McHale, Drexler, Kemp, Pippen, Mourning, Grant Hill, Garnett.

            The list still isn't unwieldy, and some of these guys qualified only
            for a year or two. It's an exclusive bunch.

            Then there's a gray zone of marginal, close, maybe-superstars. Quite
            a few I would include there, and still you have to draw a line
            somewhere.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.