The Clippers are stupid

[SpecialQue]

Doc Rivers is NOT worth that draft pick. I can see the Clips getting burned on this one later...they always seem to miss out on amazing players due to making idiotic decisions with their picks.

[2013 Lakers]

Doc Rivers alone, no. But I'm guessing their plan is to get Garnett next.

Also if hiring Doc is a key piece to re-signing Chris Paul, that has value too.

[longtime lurker]

Doc Rivers alone, no. But I'm guessing their plan is to get Garnett next.

Also if hiring Doc is a key piece to re-signing Chris Paul, that has value too.

Apparently they can't trade for Garnett now because the league is blocking it. Anyways who cares about Doc Rivers I want to know where Rondo's gonna land.

[Bandito]

Garnett has a trade clause, so if he doesn't want to go he doesn't have too. Or am I wrong?

[G-train]

When a player forces you to hire a coach for $21m and an unprotected pick, yes you are stupid. Especially when said player has not re-signed. Don't say he will re-sign now either - things change quickly.

[Darius]

Yeah a Top 5 coach for some (likely) end of the first round scrub is a terrible trade.

Clips needed this.

They need to show all the players and personnel in the league they can bring in one of the most highly respected coaches in the league (and highest paid) to lead their franchise.

OP doesn't understand business or basketball.

[outbreak]

League sources say stern will block any move for garnett now as they will view it as trying to do 2 deals to avoid the league rules of players not being included in a coach deal.

[buddha]

League sources say stern will block any move for garnett now as they will view it as trying to do 2 deals to avoid the league rules of players not being included in a coach deal.

That's pretty jewish.

[qrich]

All depends on if Paul stays and what moves follow, but I do agree Rivers is overhyped.

[COnDEMnED]

League sources say stern will block any move for garnett now as they will view it as trying to do 2 deals to avoid the league rules of players not being included in a coach deal.

this.. no garnett for the clippers this year.

[OldSkoolball#52]

Yeah a Top 5 coach for some (likely) end of the first round scrub is a terrible trade.

Clips needed this.

They need to show all the players and personnel in the league they can bring in one of the most highly respected coaches in the league (and highest paid) to lead their franchise.

OP doesn't understand business or basketball.

Terrible post.

Rivers wasn't so "Top 5" before he had three HOFers still at the end of their prime years. I seem to recall a couple years when his Celtics were in the basement and participating in the league's annual "tank-a-thon".

Coaches are an overrated element on most team's. A team that has the ABILITY to win it all may get a boost over the hump from good coaching. But you still have to have the pieces to legitimately get there anyway. The Clippers do not have that. They are not a championship team with Doc Rivers, with Greg Popovich, with Red Aurbach, with Pat Summit, with Eric Musselman.

The most important thing is players. A number 1 pick, regardless of the ODDS of it turning out to be a really useful player, is still valuable because of that possibility. ESPECIALLY in the new CBA where salary caps and free agent movement will be limited. Getting a good player on a rookie deal in the draft and having his bird rights is very important, provided you know how to draft.

The Clippers should have gave up nothing. The Celtics were GOING to let Doc walk. He clearly didn't want to be there, and they knew it. He would have been willing to let them buy him out for virtually nothing, knowing the Clips would pay him that money. Boston was going to save the money either way, but they shirked the Clippers for a first round pick. This is why Danny Ainge is Danny Ainge, and... whoever runs the Clippers... is whoever runs the Clippers. (I know his actual name, the point is he's nobody)

[Sarcastic]

League sources say stern will block any move for garnett now as they will view it as trying to do 2 deals to avoid the league rules of players not being included in a coach deal.

If they don't get Garnett, then what's the point of doing this? There are a ton of good coaches that don't cost a draft pick to get.

[COnDEMnED]

That's pretty jewish.

At least he listed the rules as a reason why he's going to block any Garnett trade. How hilarious would it be if he just said, "No Garnett to Clippers trade, Basketball Reasons" and walked out of the room.

[COnDEMnED]

If they don't get Garnett, then what's the point of doing this? There are a ton of good coaches that don't cost a draft pick to get.

Point blank, to make CP3 happy enough to sign on the dotted line. Will it be enough since really he wanted Garnett? I don't know. For sure we know CP3 wont get exactly what he wants, Stern has already made that clear.

[2013 Lakers]

Garnett has a trade clause, so if he doesn't want to go he doesn't have too. Or am I wrong?

According to Woj, KG had to waive his no-trade clause for some reason.