Q Richardson???

i think he'll want some good amount of money..like 7-8 mil per. if that's the case...we have no shot at getting him. And quite frankly, i don't think he'll want to come here when #1 is manning the SG position.

 

He reminds me of a lesser version of Cat. A "scoring guard." Strong on rebounds (6). He needs to improve on that FG% though. No passing skills.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/quentin_richardson/printable_player_files.html

I'd take him as a backup to McGrady.

 

Richardson is a scorer, period. Sure, he's capable of doing other things. But if you don't let him take at least 15 shots per game, he ain't interested. Remember how Francis/Mobley seemed redundant? Well, Richardson is simply a poor man's McGrady, with zero passing skills. No thanks.

 

so you're asking our best player to switch over to a new position to accomodate a lesser player? i mean the team comes first but a move like that is pretty ridiculous. it's like asking yao to move to the 4 spot because we're gonna sign Dampier or something.

 

Couldn't agree more.

McGrady is arguably the best SG in the league. You don't move him to a new position to make room for a much lesser player.

 

Who the hell freaking cares whether some guy is a 2 or a 3? It doesn't matter in JVG system or most people systems. Most of the time, the only difference between a 2 and a 3 is that the 2 is listed before the 3 in the Starting lineup card.

 

why are my assumptions ridiculous?

1st-you want to sign Q...who by the way is a fine player. i have no arguments there. but where are you planning to find this salary cap-growing tree of yours? you think he would sign at no less than the MLE?

2nd-JVG says it's interchangeable at the 2 and 3. fine. but i imagine the only time that they would interchange is when JJ slides to opposition's 2 because he's probably a better defender than TMac. and when the rockets get the ball back, of course McGrady will go back into SG mode. All in all, the 'interchangeable' 2/3 theory is only as good as the defense those 2 and 3 players bring to the court. and last time i saw, Q ain't exactly a par-defender

3rd-why would they need the Clips need our TE when they can just re-up Q? they would still have money left over for Kobe. I'd imagine that if Sterling goes up a notch on the level of cheapness, he'd rather let Q walk and sign Kobe anyways.

4th-Tmac plays shooting guard. We traded for a shooting guard. that position is filled. why are we adding more to a position that is more than adequately filled? just because he's probably 'played the 3 a few times' don't mean he's a 3. Hell, Francis plays point guard for the past 5 years now but that doesn't mean he's a point guard.

"that's why Tmac should slide to the 3 dumbass" you'd say

alright. but wouldn't you rather use the salary cap and the exceptions wisely...like filling out the other needs? like a back up center, a PG, and fill in the other positions with some solid role players?

 

Explain to me why the Clippers would have any interest whatsoever in a trade exception? They're currently around $14M under the cap. If they got a trade exception, it would count against their cap space until they used it or renounced it.
So, effectively they'd be cutting their cap space in half in order to keep the TE. Why would they even consider doing that? Pure cap space gives you more flexibility that a TE, so why trade $6.9M in cap space for a less flexible $6.9M TE?

The CBA doesn't let you benefit from both an exception and cap space. If LA kept the exception and eventually used it to take on more salary in a deal, then that player or players salaries would count against their cap space. So, you either get the cap space or you get the exception, you can't have both.

 

New members beware....

$ aelliott $ <----Resident Capologist

$ GATER $ <----ditto


I usually take aelliott and GATER's word for it. Else I'll have to break out the slide-ruler. An example is the post above. I read it. But I now have a head-ache.

 

I'd love to see it get done if possible. Richardson is 6'6, very strong. McGrady is 6'8. I think they can be the 2/3 very easily, their skills compliment each other. Q Richardson is a shooter, while McGrady likes to handle the ball and take it to the basket.

There are better options, but there are far worse options as well.

Ofcourse, I don't see how we could possibly get this done.

I'd try going after Ben Gordon to play alongside Yao/T-Mac. If they decide that they want to keep Gordon, I'd make a push for Crawford. I'm sure the Bulls would rather trade him to the West in exchange for a TE than see him go to an Eastern team, probably the Knicks. Plus, Crawford would be closer to the money he's looking for. The question, however, is "Can Crawford and T-Mac co-exist in the backcourt?". They both need the ball to be effective. We don't want to have a supersized Francis/Cat combo all over again.

From the Clips, I'd like to get Marko Jaric. I can see him playing 30-35 good minutes for us. He's a good shooter, has got good size, and good passing skills. No problem running the point, although he's unspectacular. But maybe that's what we're looking for? Someone sound and simple, can shoot it, prefers to shoot it rather than break down a defense, and knows his role. It's always easier for a taller player to get the ball into the post as well.

 

No you are not correct. The TE has nothing whatsoever to do with paying the luxury tax. Here's the flaw in your logic:

Unrestricted free agents count 150% or more of their last salary against the cap until they are resigned or denounced (the amount they count against the cap is called "cap hold"). The $14M cap figure is the most cap space that LA could have, but they'd have to renounce their free agents first to get to that amount. So, in order to sign Kobe, the Clippers would have to first renounce Richardson. If they do that then they obviously can't trade him to us because they no longer have his rights.

If they trade Richardson first, then they'd get an exception equal to Richardson's new salary (Let's say $6.9M). The problem is that the $6.9M exception would count against their cap, and now they've only got $7.1M available to sign Kobe. That won't work. The only way to sign Kobe is to renounce the exception. So, in the end you either get the cap space or the TE, you don't get both. It's intended to work that way.

 

There is no way Q is 6'6". Kobe is listed at 6'6", though i think he's taller than that. Q is the same size as Cat, and his game is too similar to Cat's for my liking. We are trying to change directions here. BB is the better fit, because he shoots better beyond the arc than Q does from the field.

 

Actually Q is not too similar to mobley. He's a 6'6 guard with strong post skills. He was at his best when brand was out because he was manning the post. He's pretty effective from there and he's a pretty good 3 point shooter too, but he's pretty streaky at times LIKE mobley but they have contrasting styles for the most part. I think we have enough SG/SF positions as it is. Let's look for PF, PG, or a backup C.

 

Someone else will offer him more money, we don't need to.

 

I maintain that Q is not 6'6". It's been said 3 or 4 times in this thread. His height is basically why he dropped in the draft.

 

Yao Ming
Juwan Howard
Maurice Taylor
Tracy McGrady

I count that as four player that like to score in the post. I don't think we have room for five, especially when four of them are in the starting lineup.

When Q lives exclusively on his outside shot, he struggles.