based on feigen's take and morey's quote in an interview some weeks later, it seems like the clips promised him decent money next summer if he took the minimum this year, something DM was unwilling to commit to
Like what other posters said, I think it was mostly because he would have a more defined role and playing time with the team. On the Clippers, he is automatically the 3rd big man in rotation and the 1st big off the bench. Cannot say that with the Rockets, who have a log jam at 4 with Dmo, Jones and playing time will be even more sparse since Capela will be getting some of the big man minutes at back up center. There might only be 15 mpg for Smith, if that. I think it was obvious that Smith wanted the best of both worlds. On the Clippers, he will get plenty of playing time and play with a team that will win a lot of games, and will generate a lot of interest for teams. By only taking a 1 year min deal, I think he is looking at next offseason to cash in when every team will have money to spend!
Also sounds very standard operating procedure by NBA teams. But I don't remember hearing that. Either way, it makes more sense for him to go to the Clippers, as he'll play more and will make more money next year because of that PT regardless of handshake deals.
One thing you can count on from Daryl Morey: He will take a hard numerical look at the value you add, on net, and not pay more than that. I don't think Morey disrespected Smith. I think that on net, he decided, correctly that Smith's value wasn't as great as many people on this board seem to think. We noticed the awesome outbursts, the 4-5 alley oops, the beautiful pass now and then. We did our best to forget or minimize the chucking, the hack-a, the blown rotations, the flat-out giving up on too many plays. Josh Smith cost us a lot of points at both ends. And then there's the opportunity cost of the minutes he takes from the development of other players who haven't already developed some bad attitudes that at his age are unlikely to change. A cold-eyed assessment says Morey didn't offer more because Smith wasn't worth it. Doc Rivers thinks he can get enough of the positives without too much of the negatives. I'd bet against him, but we'll see.
Because he wanted a "Josh Smith as a Los Angeles Clipper" thread on CF that would eventually beat out the Lin thread for most replies.
I hate when people finish their OP with "discuss" First of all, what else were people going to do? Second, who are you to tell me to discuss? I'll discuss it if and only if I want to. Anyway it was for PT.
I love Smith. I would have loved to keep him as a Rocket but like any situations in life, Smith just had to do what was best for him. We offered a good amount money. It was probably alot more than the Clips offered. I am sure however he wanted to be in L.A. and he probably wanted to be the first bigman off the bench. Once Dmo comes back I think we're going to settle with the rotation of Dwight Dmo and Tjones. What bothers me the most of this situation though is that Tjones and Dmo have yet to show they can defensively help out with the PF's of the west. I truly hope Morey has a trade up his sleeve, this team will need it.
If he asked for you thoughts would it be any different? Bad posting. This thread is what this forum has always been about at the core. We offered more than the clips, but I think you're right about time. DMo and TJones are about to be big money players and there's no way that the Rockets wanted to deal with a PF minutes issue. Josh not being here helps that. Add Trez to that and the issue compounds. If the Rockets stay healthy at the 4, we'll miss the creativity of Smith, but not the overall impact. He and the Rockets made the right move. He'll have more touches over there and we'll have better two way performance here, but both things are marginal. All, of course, IMHO.
Yes it would have. You completely misunderstood me. Bad replying. In real life, after asking someone a question, do you say "Discuss"?
Now you're nitpicking. In academic circles, you'll hear this more often. Is he supposed to apologize for a choice of words that still conveys the same exact message? Anyway, you and I have derailed this thread over nothing significant. Discuss. (props on the "bad reply" part though... that made me laugh)
