Are the LA Clippers the worst organization in professional sports?

No actually Clutch it WAS Baron Davis. The Clippers had a deal for Andre Miller but the Cavs asked for to much and it fell through. So the Clippers worked out a deal for Baron Davis, and Donald Sterling NIXED the deal! Unreal! Of course this is the same organization that lost Larry Brown because they didn't want to negotiate over the weekend or something. Unbelievable. A couple of monkeys could run that organization better. Far and away the worst organization in all of sports.

 

The wild thing is, the GM a few years ago actually FORGOT when the draft was! Baylor forgot when the draft was. How on EARTH can you forget when the draft is!? And how can you be rushed with the 8th pick? Thank god idiots run that organization. If anybody with a brain ran that organization they'd have a dynasty. The talent that goes through that organization, or could have been acquired by that organization is scary.

 

Sell 'em and move 'em to Charlotte, please !

Wouldn't that be hilarious if they did the Baron Davis trade and Davis ended back up in Charlotte!

 

best quote of Elgin Baylor as a Clippers GM...

it was in a NBA draft about 5 years ago, the Clippers were on the clock and someone asked Hubie Brown (EJ did, I think) about Baylor... he thought for a second and deadpanned... "Well, he is a veteran of the lottery process."

that just about sums up the Clippers organization very succinctly

 

The L.A. Clippers are the best farm system a league could have. We should be greatful that Sterling is so willing to spend his money grooming so many #1 picks for the next step to the real NBA.

They've finished with a .500 record or above in 6 of their 32 years in the league & only 3 times in their last 26 years. That's pathetic.

There's more......

They've drafted:

24 top 10 picks

14 top 5 picks

11 top 3 picks

2 number one overall picks

Compare those numbers to the fact that the Rockets have had a total of 30 #1 picks in their 35 year history. I can't find the break down of how many were top 10 picks, but I'll bet it isn't more than 10-15. By the way, the Rockets have finished with a .500 or better record in 21 of their 35 years in the league. That's 60% of our seasons have been even or above.

 

The sorry tale of the Los Angeles Clippers goes something like this:

Year 1 (1998) -
The team is at the top of the lottery in a draft that either A) doesn't afford them a clear-cut selection because its best players don't fulfill team needs or B) is otherwise weak. Naturally, Baylor selects an underachiever (Olowokandi).

Year 2 (1999) -
The team's record remains the same. This time, however, the team selects a quality player with certain issues, ranging from injuries to drugs (Odom).

Year 3 (2000) -
The team trades away most of its talent along with losing some of its best players to free-agency (Lorenzen Wright, Rodney Rogers), finishing with the worst record in the league. However, this affords them supplemental draft picks an (for once) the team acquires quality players the blossom within two seasons (Richardson, Magette) along with their own draft selection (Miles). They actually have a good draft.

Years 4 & 5 -
In the following two seasons, the team either comes away with a franchise cornerstone (Brand) or overachieves (i.e. 1997). Their former lottery picks and trade acquisitions finally blossom, having career years because they are so motivated to sign somewhere else (bottom line: Sterling is cheap). While they now have a legitimate shot at a playoff berth, the team breaks apart (just about every holdover is traded away or signs elsewhere) as they return to year one.

Talented players and veteran leadership will not save the Clippers unless they change ownership, get rid of Baylor and move (that's a possibility). Otherwise, as your story pointed out, they will remain in this cyclical hell - just like the guy in Groundhog Day.

 

i saw their lotto pick from 1992, Terry Dehere, on one of those "Behind the NBDL" shows on ESPN... it was odd to see him as the superstar on a team... anytime a member of the team was breaking a rule, the coach would look to dehere and tell them what would happen if they did that in the NBA... talk about depressing!

 

Griffin for Brand anyone?

 

Don't believe everything you read in the media. The Clippers did not "botch" a deal on draft night-- they simply didn't want to shop Odom or Miles, especially not in a lopsided trade involving one of those guys + both draft picks for Miller or Davis. The Cleveland report of a bungled last-minute draft is just relaying what Mark Heisler "reported" in the LA Times, typical second-hand stuff (he's been major Sterling/Baylor hater for many years). If you want a better source, read the OC Register (Art Thompson, Clippers beat writer) or Fox Sports (Randy Hill).

Most non-Clipper fans (and many Clipper fans) think that trading Odom+change for Miller is a good thing, but they are basing their judgements almost exclusively on last season, when Odom was out for 50 games due to injury. That's ridiculous. Odom has had a better career so far than either Davis or Miller; the job he did in the '01 season was superb, and when he was healthy last season the Clippers were consistently beating good teams by large margins. Obviously, he's a risk, and the Clippers knew this when they drafted him, but he's supremely talented, is loved by his teammates, is loved by the fans, and is up for a make-or-break contract this year. It would be stupid to trade him now when his stock is so low, especially if they have to give up even more.

Yes, Miller would help this team, but at what cost? Trading Miles or Odom isn't just about trying to fill need-- it's about building chemistry. The Clippers are in the fortunate situation of actually having a group of guys that likes to play with each other. You can see if on the floor. It hasn't translated into a dominant ballclub just yet, but that's mostly due to inexperience, not a void of talent. They are stocked at every position except PG, and even there they are just fine, with incoming Euro Marco Jaric and former #10 pick Keyon Dooling, as well as Odom who can play there in stints. The only real problem is that their rotation is too deep, with 10 guys deserving minutes; they may have to make a 2-1 or 3-1 trade to try to alleviate this, but it shouldn't involve the main core (Odom, Miles, Brand, Kandi, Q).

People love to mock the Clippers and Sterling for his "thrify" management, but they never look at the facts. Sterling has always vowed to pay franchise players the max. Look at the history of Clipper players. Who, really, has been a franchise player? The only one in the last decade or so was Danny Manning, who was considered the future of the franchise. The team offered him a huge contract that he declined. In recent years, the Clippers did not agree to contracts for Derek Anderson or Mo Taylor, both of those guys demanding far more than they were worth. In hindsight, I think this was a great move-- it cleared cap space to build the much more talented team of today. But Sterling never gets kudos for that. Now the Clippers consistently selling out the arena, building up a large fanbase, and merchandising all over the place. On the court, the team is fun to watch and has good chemistry. The Clippers have never had anything close to this situation-- even in the heyday of the Larry Brown years there was little fan support and no sellouts-- and I think it is in Sterling's best interest, as a businessman, to keep it going. Why break up a good thing with a big trade, just to fill some fabricated need by people who believe teams need an all-star at every position?

 

Is it Baylor? [Who else would take this job?]
Or
Is it the Owner [he f*cked the Miller deal]?

Or is it both?

Rocket River

 

Didn't sterling essentially trade the previous owner of the Clippers a parking garage for the team/franchise?

Also, does anyone else know how the Clippers rank in the NBA as far as profitability goes? I'm sorry, but if the Clippers are a lot more profitable than other NBA teams, I guess I cant really blame Sterling.

 

Well, here's what Art Thompson wrote in Thursday's Orange County Register about the Clippers-Cavs non-deal:

Now, "reluctant to include Lamar Odom" is kind of peculiar phrasing, isn't it? Particularly when it's distinguished from the nice, clear "refused to trade Miles."

But it fits perfectly with the scenario reported by Heisler and the Cleveland paper -- that the Clippers agreed (reluctantly! ) to trade Odom instead of Maggette, but were saved from themselves by the Wilcox/Butler screwup.

It's not like other reporters would have to take Heisler's word about the story, by the way. They could check with sources in the NBA office to see if the Clippers really tried to undo their pick, with the Heat and Suns to see if the Clippers really tried to swap Wilcox for Butler, with the agents for either player, etc. Judging from the Cleveland article -- including the quote from Butler -- it appears that the story checked out.

FWIW, though, I do think the Mitch Lawrence stuff is off base. Miles isn't even up for an extension, so there'd be no need to tell him he's not getting the max. And Sterling told the LA Times that he was willing to give Brand a maximum extension.


Don't ask me to judge a credibility contest between Mitch Lawrence and Donald Sterling, though ... that's "Celebrity Boxing" material if you ask me ...

 

Well of course the Clippers turn a profit...

an excerpt from TSN: (before that start of the 2001-2002 season)

The Clippers current payroll in its current form is more than $28 million, which is below the minimum team salary of $31.875 million. If the Clippers don't reach the minimum team salary, then the difference between the total payroll and the minimum team salary is taken and distributed among the players on the team


just like the Expos and Marlins, if you don't spend money on talent, you'll make a profit.

 

In addition:

NBA payrolls: Team 2001-02 salaries
New York $85,253,575
Portland $83,996,421
Philadelphia $57,791,546
Dallas $56,506,659
Milwaukee $55,568,802
Sacramento $54,763,038
Phoenix $54,696,916
Minnesota $54,509,632
Utah $54,334,915
Denver $53,687,498
New Jersey $53,597,326
Indiana $53,211,121
L.A. Lakers $52,985,249
Miami $52,916,216
Toronto $52,657,135
Washington $51,065,719
Memphis $50,289,143
Charlotte $49,733,595
Atlanta $49,328,373
Houston $49,238,169
Orlando $48,322,001
Boston $47,469,112
Golden State $47,173,177
San Antonio $46,487,983
Cleveland $45,924,974
Seattle $44,965,883
Chicago $42,544,557
Detroit $41,711,427
and surprise, surprise...
<b>L.A. Clippers $33,734,932 </b>

 

You want facts? I'll repeat some facts that you must've over looked in this thread.

They've drafted:

24 top 10 picks

14 top 5 picks

11 top 3 picks

2 number one overall picks

They've finished with a .500 record or above in 6 of their 32 years in the league & only 3 times in their last 26 years. That's pathetic.

Who's fault is it that the Clippers have not drafted any franchise players? Of course, if they hadn't traded McDyess for Rodney Rogers & Brent Barry, they would be able to say that they've had at least one franchise player.

 

<b>Don't believe everything you read in the media. The Clippers did not "botch" a deal on draft night-- they simply didn't want to shop Odom or Miles, especially not in a lopsided trade involving one of those guys + both draft picks for Miller or Davis. The Cleveland report of a bungled last-minute draft is just relaying what Mark Heisler "reported" in the LA Times, typical second-hand stuff (he's been major Sterling/Baylor hater for many years). If you want a better source, read the OC Register (Art Thompson, Clippers beat writer) or Fox Sports (Randy Hill).

</b>

ESPN even reported it. I mean why would newspapers in Cleveland, ESPN and other reporters lie about this? I doubt they all hate Sterling. And I doubt someone would make up several reports like this to get at him.


<b>Odom has had a better career so far than either Davis or Miller; the job he did in the '01 season was superb, and when he was healthy last season the Clippers were consistently beating good teams by large margins. Obviously, he's a risk, and the Clippers knew this when they drafted him, but he's supremely talented, is loved by his teammates, is loved by the fans, and is up for a make-or-break contract this year. It would be stupid to trade him now when his stock is so low, especially if they have to give up even more. </b>

It's not about whether Odom is better then Davis or Miller, it's about improving the team. The Clippers are loaded with SFs and guards, they need a PG. Miller and Davis are the answer, not keeping another SF like Odom and tying up money in him.

<b>Yes, Miller would help this team, but at what cost? Trading Miles or Odom isn't just about trying to fill need-- it's about building chemistry. The Clippers are in the fortunate situation of actually having a group of guys that likes to play with each other. You can see if on the floor. It hasn't translated into a dominant ballclub just yet, but that's mostly due to inexperience, not a void of talent.</b>

But who's going to get the players the ball? Chemistry could be screwed up when guys are fighting for the ball.

<b>They are stocked at every position except PG, and even there they are just fine, with incoming Euro Marco Jaric and former #10 pick Keyon Dooling, as well as Odom who can play there in stints. The only real problem is that their rotation is too deep, with 10 guys deserving minutes; they may have to make a 2-1 or 3-1 trade to try to alleviate this, but it shouldn't involve the main core (Odom, Miles, Brand, Kandi, Q).</b>

If the Clippers are going to keep Odom, they're likely going to lose Richardson, who is obviously going to want to start, or get big minutes.

<b>People love to mock the Clippers and Sterling for his "thrify" management, but they never look at the facts. </b>

Fact: Sterling let Larry Brown walk because he didn't want to negotiate with him over the holidays or weekends. Larry Brown never wanted to leave.

<b>Sterling has always vowed to pay franchise players the max. Look at the history of Clipper players. Who, really, has been a franchise player?</b>

Obviously he can't pay franchise money to franchise players if he trades them away or lets them walk.

<b> The only one in the last decade or so was Danny Manning, who was considered the future of the franchise. The team offered him a huge contract that he declined. In recent years, the Clippers did not agree to contracts for Derek Anderson or Mo Taylor, both of those guys demanding far more than they were worth. In hindsight, I think this was a great move-- it cleared cap space to build the much more talented team of today. But Sterling never gets kudos for that.</b>

I seriously doubt he planned that, I just think it fell into his lap. There's a reason players hated playing there. When Lorenzen Wright left his agent said "Welcome to the NBA!", when Ron Harper left he said he felt like he was let out of jail. Mo Taylor hated there, Ron Harper, Mark Jackson, Danny Manning, Loy Vaught, Bo Outlaw, etc., etc.

<b>Now the Clippers consistently selling out the arena, building up a large fanbase, and merchandising all over the place. On the court, the team is fun to watch and has good chemistry. The Clippers have never had anything close to this situation-- even in the heyday of the Larry Brown years there was little fan support and no sellouts-- and I think it is in Sterling's best interest, as a businessman, to keep it going. Why break up a good thing with a big trade, just to fill some fabricated need by people who believe teams need an all-star at every position? </b>

We'll see what happens when payday comes around and he has to lock some of these players up. And I can't remember what coach it was, maybe it was Bill Fitch, I can't remember, said that Donald Sterling told him he wanted him to not only coach but tape up the players before games to save money. This guy is overflowing with money but he wants coaches to tape up the players?

 

Odom has PG instincts and ballhandling ability and averaged nearly six assists last year from the forward position. When he is on the floor, the Clippers don't need a PG. The Lakers seem to have done pretty well without a PG, wouldn't you say? The Bulls weren't too shabby without a PG. Those teams ran non-traditional offenses to make this work; the Clippers can do the same thing. And even if they don't, the combo of Dooling and Jaric at the point could very well be fine-- they'll just need some minutes to see. The Clippers do not need any particular position. They do need a franchise player who gives the opposition mismatch problems, and I think Odom is far more suited to this job than Miller.

Odom. He is a tremendous playmaker. And Dooling is as much a PG as McInnis was. Who knows about Jaric.

Odom predominately plays SF, not SG. Q could start at SG (he's battling with Pike and Maggette). The main rotation issue is Odom vs. Miles, who also is best at SF. This could be resolved if they experimented with Odom at PG. I agree, the Clippers are going to lose one of their core players in the upcoming years if they are out for the most money. The team simply can't afford everyone. So it's a matter of prioritizing, and IMHO, they should try to keep Odom, Brand, and Miles in that order.

Let's see some evidence of this "fact".

I repeat, who on the Clippers has been a franchise player? They haven't had the luxury of a "no-brainer" #1, like Magic, or Duncan, or Shaq, or Olajuwon. They've screwed up some drafts, I'll give you that much.

Lots of franchise players among that bunch, too.

Yep. Sterling may not be the best owner, but he is the best businessman in the NBA, and the Clippers are making a lot of money for him right now (not so much through the salary cap, but through the sellouts and especially merchandising). That may be why he is reluctant to let Odom/Miles/Q go, since they are clearly the big sellers. However, it works in the team's favor, ultimately, because it keeps guys together. People who nitpick over positional analysis haven't watched the Clippers on the court, where they make things work by virtue of having a number of versatile players who defy traditional types. This team is improving every year-- even with this so-called "botched" draft they only got better this offseason. Maybe they'll be sold off next year, and you can laugh at their follies, but seeing as the Clippers have never been in this situation before, I don't see how you can assume the worst.

 

David Falk will be visiting Clipperland this week to talk to Sterling about Brand's contract. If Mitch Lawrence is correct (see Clutch's post) this will be Brand's last season with the Clippers. Miles has a couple of years left on his contract, so we will see what happens with him.

A big problem with the Clippers (along with an inept front office) is their inability to keep a coach for any length of time. Look at all the successful teams, the coaches have been in place for more than 2-3 years.