Clippers Practice: Austin Rivers at SF, Brice Johnson (back) out indefinitely

Who cares about injuries that happened because he was overplayed on another squad, that doesn't address his value as an asset and a player and what we could have got. You don't know what CP would have done. You're not CP. The point is Bled is a max contract asset with a PER that ranks in the top 25 in the league and we failed to capitalize on it. We didnt need to trade him when we did, so the names in the rumor mill at that time are inconsequential. We had a full season to wait for the right package and RFA rights making sure we could retain him. Mario Chalmers for minimum is a steal compared to Austin at $11M. That is the point. Austin was not worth overpaying. You seem to be completely obtuse about this and dodge that fact by comparing his contract to other overpays. Mario Chalmers, regardless of Achilles issues, averages more than Austin and is $10M less a year.

Yes, they are overpays no matter how much you want to say they arent. The market changed because of the additional salary cap, but clearly value was still present as we were able to secure both Raymond Felton and Mo Speights for less than what they should have commanded on the market. The production of both of those players compared to Austin shows that Austin was an overpay. I dont care that other more desperate teams paid high dollars for mediocre role players, that in no way proves that Austin's contract was a good deal in comparison to other options on the market available (Chalmers, Lawson, Cole, Vasquez) for minimum that produce better stats than Austin. I can cite multiple players paid significantly less that produce far more than Austin. It is you that is clueless by continuing to say overpaying was smart based on the market rates for other mediocre role players. There was, and still is, tons of value available on the market at minimum for the same role Austin fills. The only time you should overpay is when there are no better options. There were better options. We still chose to overpay. That was a bad decision. We did not need to trade Bledsoe when we did. The pieces we got in return did not match his value. We had an entire year at rookie scale before he hit RFA, for which we had the leverage as the rights holder and there are literally thousands of different trade scenarios that could have presented themselves. Even Sterling, in one of the few times I actually agreed with him, tried to stop the trade. It doesnt matter whether CP3 or Bledsoe could have co-existed or not as dual starters, something I never even stated in the first place. The fact remains Bledsoe is an asset that is valued as a max player. We could have used that asset in multiple ways, in either trade, or as a starter in a combo-guard role. I never said both had to start, that's you adding things to the argument that were never stated. I simply maintain we should have kept the asset or waiting until the trade opportunities fulfilled real needs we had as a team. You and your assumptions about players have no bearing in reality. They are manufactured in your head and you cant back them up. Rio Chalmers may have blown his achilles but he still has better stats and production than Austin and is still available for $10M a year less. That is the point. We could replace Austins role with a more productive player for $10M less. Your personal opinions of Rio have nothing to do with the facts and stats. Austin is below average and a worse player than Rio from a statistical perspective. He's also cheaper from a market perspective. Those are facts, not baseless assumptions concocted in someones head. Jamal is a core member. We needed to retain him. I have no issues with that contract. We should have let Austin walk or get a signed deal and then decided whether or not to match. I, personally, would have targeted Ty Lawson or Rio Chalmers at minimum to fill that role and kept more space avalable under the cap moving into next offseason as we confront CP3, Blake and JJ being free agents and commanding big dollar extensions. Theres no benefit to a long term overpay unless a team is looking for a salary dump. Not many teams are going to be calling for Austin at $11M a year unless its to unload another player who is overpaid.

That's your opinion that a trade was necessaryand it neglects the fact we had all the leverage as it relates to his RFA status the following year. We held all the leverage. Your assumptions are just assumptions. Injuries after the trade have no bearing whatsoever on this discussion and could be attributed to him being overplayed in PHX. That doesn't address any of the points about letting him go for pennies on the dollar based on his market rate as a max player. Rio is still recovering but has 3 teams calling about his services. That still doesn't change the fact he wants less money and produces more than Austin. The point is we could replace what Austin provides at a fraction of the cost with a player that has better statistical output. Jamal is a core member of this team and he is. Attack his percentages all you want, Doc still relies on his ability to create shots on the second unit and he still was 6th man of the year. Yes, he is a core member of this team and it's identity. Again, by saving that $11m on Austin by replacing the role he fills with a cheaper more productive option makes it easier to retain CP, Blake and JJ next year. I don't want to lose JJ because we are so far over the luxury line thanks to overpaying Austin and not being able to move him or get his contract off the books. With Ty Lawson or Rio we could let them walk or sign them to an additional year without compromising the available cap under the tax and with our exceptions in tact. You're the one being dumb here by insisting Austin at $11M was a smart deal. It wasn't. We competed against ourselves when we had all the leverage and ignored better, cheaper options who could fulfill the same role.