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

Re: [APBR_analysis] Andre Miller and Clipper free agents

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Aug 1, 2002
      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 2 of 5 , Aug 1, 2002
        --- 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 3 of 5 , Aug 1, 2002
          --- 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.