<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>One proposed solution in Celtics-Clippers talks, sources say: If Clips take back Courtney Lee or Jason Terry, Boston would relent on Bledsoe</p>— Marc Stein (@ESPNSteinLine) <a href="https://twitter.com/ESPNSteinLine/statuses/346695804192432129">June 17, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script> As I said nothing is imminent.
Who said anything about a deal imminent? Or that Bledsoe was 100% safe? Again, go read all the posts you were quoting and responding to and what RD was even commenting on in the first place. Reading comprehension gets one far. But I get it, you need to save face, so straw man all you like. This will be my last post in response to this issue w/ you. Moving on.
Why are some of you still debating/worrying about the Bledsoe issue? Whether the Clippers trade him to Boston or keep him, it's already been confirmed from Coon that the Griffin/Bledsoe for Howard "rumor" was planted by an agent (presumably Paul's) and isn't something the Clippers would do or have any interest in. If Bledsoe stays, it's so they can flip him for Granger or Afflalo later. Someone in that tier.
1) Is Coon that great of an insider source? I have no idea. I imagine he isn't Woj-level. 2) Things change -- fluid nba. It'd be folly to think they have already 100% unequivocally closed the door to such a reasonable scenario.
Coon is very plugged in with the front offices, particularly in LA. He's not nearly as plugged in with the players/agents, but when it comes to franchises themselves, he's pretty solid. That's why it makes perfect sense that the ESPN rumor came from the player side of things. I really don't think it's a reasonable scenario. Griffin's younger, has less of a health risk, the business side loves him, etc. Likewise, if you're Dwight, why do the Clippers appeal to you if you take away Griffin? CP3, Dwight, KG and scrubs isn't going to win a ring, and it'll be further over the hill with each year. It really doesn't make sense for the Clippers or Dwight... the only person it would stand to benefit is Chris Paul, if he is desperate to play with Dwight, because that's the only way the Lakers would conceivably be open to a S&T. And if this Rivers deal gets done, my guess is Paul will have already given his word to the Clippers, thus losing most of his leverage. (Plus, I doubt Dwight would go along with it anyway, but that's another story.)
You really don't think it is a reasonable scenario? LAL considering Griffin/Bledsoe for Dwight, who might walk? That is a pretty appealing offer. The deal would appeal to Dwight because obviously it only gets made if CP3 commits -- so they'd be playing together. I do think this is a weak part of the chain though, assuming he'd prefer LAC and CP3 to Harden and Parsons, but that isn't so unbelievable. It appeals to LAC because they'd only do it because CP3 wants it and will sign once it is done. So I can easily see how it appeals to all the parties, at least within a reasonable degree. Now you're sort of factoring in the Celts deal, which I am not accounting for because that is separate from Coon's comment. He was just saying LAL will definitely not do the Griffin/Bledsoe trade. I am a bit skeptical, even setting aside the fact that I imagine Woj would have reported that already as he is even MORE in tune w/ franchise sources. I can believe, however, that once a Celts move is made, the SnT of Dwight to LAC is off the table. That is contingent though on the Celts deal being made. The Celts deal being ongoing is not somehow mutually exclusive to the possibility that LAL and LAC may still do that SnT in the future, even if they aren't presently entertaining it to its full degree.
Actually no. Coon didn't say LAL wouldn't do the Griffin/Bledsoe trade. He said LAC definitely wouldn't do it. I mention it in connection with the Celtics deal because it seems inevitable that it gets done, at this point. They've gone too far and all parties seem too invested to go back. Once the Rivers deal happens, CP3's leverage to force the Clippers' hand is gone -- and there's no reason for them to do the deal after that.
That is fine; you can replace my use of LAL w/ LAC there; I don't think my point changes too much. Unless of course he knows for certain that LAC would rather have Griffin/Bledsoe and cap space than CP3 and Dwight. If Sterling is 100% deadset on that, then yeah, guess it won't happen, but I just can't bring myself to believe LAC 100% believes Bledsoe/Griffin > CP3/Dwight. I comment on this because, while I do not disagree w/ your overall conclusion that if the Rivers deal happens, CP3's leverage is probably gone (as I assume it only goes down if CP3 agrees to it), I question the weight to give Coon's comment, which was made much earlier. He was not making it in connection to this Celtics development, so I am questioning both his validity as a source (or rather how accurate of a read he has) AND the confidence in which he personally relays the message. Coon's comment suggests that, regardless of the result of this Celtics deal, LAC will not SnT Griffin for Dwight (essentially), even if it means retaining CP3. I somehow doubt that that door is completely shut. Whether it is their Plan A or even actively being pursued right now is a different matter, but I don't think I would discard the prospect of it happening as if it were an after thought.
Stein: Doing this deal clinches Paul staying. The working assumption is Pierce will be leaving by the end of the month. Celtics prefer to trade him and his new team would buy him out. Trading him to the Clippers is near impossible. If Doc and KG are out the door, that spells the end of Pierce in a Celtics uniform. The working presumption around the league is, one way or another, Pierce will find his way to LA. Lakers are still telling teams we aren't doing S&T but as we've seen in the past, that changes. Lakers still think they're keeping Dwight. Houston is a very real threat. Dallas is a threat as well. Chris Paul & Dwight have been talking and would love to hook up. Lakers have to decide, do we want to let him walk for nothing? Some in the organization say yes, we're the Lakers, let's get our financial situation in order, we're the Lakers, we'll go after in FAs in 2014. Lakers have to consider anything and everything if you are losing Dwight Howard. Lakers apparently telling anyone who will listen: We aren't signing and trading Dwight blah blah blah
Seems the Dwight to Clips rumor is just another rumor that the media grabbed on to for the sizzle level. I think most on this board knows that Howard is gonna get lit up in the media for leaving the Lakers. If he goes to Houston the backlash probably wont be that bad, as it makes sense. Stars dont leave the Lakers, but Dwight to Houston makes perfect sense to everybody. Now if he was to decide to leave the Lakers for the Clippers he would be committing media suicide. He would never get back in the good graces of fans and media. It would be a terrible look for him. The Lakers shine is too bright, but he is willing to move down the hall to stay in LA. To bad we have to wait a couple more weeks to get this FA ball rolling. The Rockets are going to have a strong presentation. With Harden. Parsons, and maybe more players talking to Dwight we have a great chance to sign him. Without a chance to sign Paul, they would be no reason to do a S&T for Howard. Unless I guess Morey uses his best friend as a option that we can get. Then a S&T for Howard could make sense. Lin and Asik for Howard, then sign Billups to small contract to be starting PG. Sign Gary Neal to a decent deal. Lineup would be: PG- Billups SG- Harden SF- Parsons PF- Smith C- Howard Bench PG- Beverly SG- Neal SF Garcia-vet min PF- Jones C- Smith PF- D-Mo PG/SG- Brooks vet min
I think that Howard and Paul need Harden. That is why we still sit in a good spot inside of all this LAC turmoil.
Don't expect to hear from cyberx any time soon, but that doesn't mean that the Rockets are done. I'm still very confident about signing Dwight.
