Did Blake Griffin get traded or something? Lets check in with Clippers fans...
Nationally televised games this week
Monday: Boston @ Detroit 9:00 PM EST NBATv Tuesday: Cleveland @ Detroit 8:00 PM EST TNT, Portland @ L.A. Clippers 10:30 PM EST TNT Wednesday: New York @ Boston 8:00 PM EST ESPN, Dallas @ Phoenix 10:30 PM ESTESPN Thursday: Houston @ San Antonio 8:00 PM EST TNT, Oklahoma City @ Denver 10:30 PM EST TNT Friday: Miami @ Philadelphia 8:00 PM EST ESPN, Golden State @ Sacramento 10:30 PM EST ESPN Saturday: Houston @ Cleveland 8:30 PM EST ABC Sunday: L.A. Lakers @ Oklahoma City 2:00 PM EST ABC
I have been thinking about this Blake Griffin trade quite a bit tonight. I know must of us were upset about the Bledsoe trade, but if you contextualize it in terms of the Griffin trade, it ends up looking a little better.
Essentially, the Clippers got an expiring, a 1st, a 2nd, and a solid player for Blake. We received 3 out of 4 of those assets for Bledsoe who is clearly a much worse player than Griffin. Now, Harris is a quality starter, so that single missing asset is somewhat significant. The length of Bledsoe and Griffin's contracts could be spun as negatives or positives depending on how you feel about each of them as a player which could alter how you feel about each trade.
With that in mind, does this make people feel better about the Bledsoe trade? Personally, I still think we could have held out for a bit more. Although it is clear now that our reluctance to take on any long-term money limited the assets we could extract from the Bucks.
n4th4n wrote: With that in mind, does this make people feel better about the Bledsoe trade? Personally, I still think we could have held out for a bit more. Although it is clear now that our reluctance to take on any long-term money limited the assets we could extract from the Bucks.
We should have at the least got Brogdon included in the package.
Zach Lowe wrote:A word on loyalty: the Clippers went out of their way to label Griffin a "Clipper for life." As I first revealed here, the preamble to their free agency pitch meeting involved walking Griffin through a makeshift museum of his life and then retiring his number -- literally raising it to the rafters as music played in an empty Staples Center -- in a staged "ceremony." (They obviously took the banner down and stored it somewhere.)
Five months later, he's gone without a say. Look: teams and players say stuff all the time just to say it, because they need to say the right thing at the right moment. But the Clippers went the extra mile with the "for life" line. (They have said the same about Jordan, by the way. Stay tuned on that.) They could have just said, "We love Blake and we're thrilled he's back." They didn't have to make a big show about Griffin being a lifelong Clipper. This will cost them a little credibility in the very, very short-term, but those stains rarely stick. Everyone knows this is a business. But the "for life" declarations seemed over the top then, and almost absurd now.
n4th4n wrote:I have been thinking about this Blake Griffin trade quite a bit tonight. I know must of us were upset about the Bledsoe trade, but if you contextualize it in terms of the Griffin trade, it ends up looking a little better.
Essentially, the Clippers got an expiring, a 1st, a 2nd, and a solid player for Blake. We received 3 out of 4 of those assets for Bledsoe who is clearly a much worse player than Griffin. Now, Harris is a quality starter, so that single missing asset is somewhat significant. The length of Bledsoe and Griffin's contracts could be spun as negatives or positives depending on how you feel about each of them as a player which could alter how you feel about each trade.
With that in mind, does this make people feel better about the Bledsoe trade? Personally, I still think we could have held out for a bit more. Although it is clear now that our reluctance to take on any long-term money limited the assets we could extract from the Bucks.
For me, it's not really what we got back so much as the timing of the trade. The Suns should have known what was coming and moved him before it became an issue.
The league needs heroes, villains... and clowns. -- Aztec Sunsfan
If true, what the heck are the bulls doing? That Asik contract is terrible. Good for the Pelicans.
Edit: Apparently the last year of the Asik deal has a 3 million buyout. So makes a little more sense for Chicago. Basically just 11 million next year and 3 million in 2019.
If true, what the heck are the bulls doing? That Asik contract is terrible. Good for the Pelicans.
Edit: Apparently the last year of the Asik deal has a 3 million buyout. So makes a little more sense for Chicago. Basically just 11 million next year and 3 million in 2019.
I don't understand that trade for either team, because I thought Mirotic was playing well for the Bulls. I guess not.
Man, you guys called it. The Pels gave up a pick for an OK big guy. Why couldn't it have been one of ours?
The league needs heroes, villains... and clowns. -- Aztec Sunsfan
I'll withhold judgement until I see what pick they gave up. Like I said, I thought Chicago really liked him.
As for his play this year - yep. He is scoring and rebounding very well this season on a friendly contract. His numbers this year are a BIG step up from previous seasons, so I will be very curious if he can keep up the good shooting in NO.
The league needs heroes, villains... and clowns. -- Aztec Sunsfan
