Why the Los Angeles Clippers Will Regret Not Trading for Paul Pierce

Why the Los Angeles Clippers Will Regret Not Trading for Paul Pierce

Yahoo! Contributor Network
By Justin Haskins | Yahoo! Contributor Network – 2 hours 24 minutes ago


COMMENTARY | All-Star small forward Paul Pierce didn't hide his disappointment from the world over the way the Boston Celtics handled his departure to the Brooklyn Nets.

Like all Celtics greats, Pierce wanted to stay in Boston and retire with the same team that he played every game of his career with. Who can blame him? Pierce is going to go down as a legend, and it's reasonable for legends to be upset when teams don't want them anymore.

Pierce didn't have the option of choosing Brooklyn as his destination for 2013-2014. The Nets were willing to give the Celtics the draft picks they wanted, and that is all that mattered to president of basketball operations Danny Ainge. He would have traded Pierce and Kevin Garnett to Russia if he thought it could get the team higher picks and free up more cap space.

But now that the smoke has cleared and Pierce is wearing a Nets uniform, the question is being considered: Where did Paul Pierce want to go?

Boston Globe Reporter Gary Washburn reported on Sunday, Aug. 18 that Pierce stated in an interview that he was very happy he ended up with the Nets, one of the three teams he says he was most interested in playing for. And although Pierce has been especially cryptic about the other two teams, Washburn again reiterated in his article that sources around the league believed that Pierce would sign with the Los Angeles Clippers if the Celtics did not exercise the team option in his contract, making them his first choice.

This shouldn't come as a big surprise, considering that Pierce had an excellent relationship with new Clippers coach Doc Rivers, Pierce is originally from Inglewood, California, and that initial trade rumors had Pierce, Garnett and Rivers going to Los Angeles as a package.

The Clippers were unwilling to pull the trigger on a deal that would have likely cost them multiple first-round draft picks and young talent. But now that we see that the Nets were willing to give up a similar package, is it fair to say that Los Angeles lost out by not making the deal? The team undeniably has a solid foundation with All-Stars Chris Paul and Blake Griffin, but without a legitimate perimeter scorer who can take over a game in the fourth quarter, it's doubtful that a team that couldn't even get out of the first round of the playoffs last year against the Memphis Grizzlies has any chance of taking down the Oklahoma City Thunder, the San Antonio Spurs or the new-and-improved Houston Rockets.

Paul Pierce, however, would have provided the All-Star-caliber scoring needed from the small forward position and would have forced Jared Dudley to come off the bench, a role that better fits Dudley and deepens the Clippers' rotation.

Additionally, Pierce, and Garnett if he also ended up coming over in the deal, brings something the Clippers do not have and can't teach to their players: championship experience. Of all the players on the Los Angeles roster, not one of them has won an NBA title, and only J.J. Redick has any NBA Finals experience. Coach Doc Rivers will certainly bring a lot of needed playoff experience to an organization that has very little of it, but if the Brooklyn Nets find themselves in the Eastern Conference finals or the NBA Finals, the Clippers will likely be kicking themselves for not making the trade in order to save a few late first-round picks.

--

My Take: Has this guy forgotten that the NBA promised to block the trades? It came down to either getting Doc or KG for LAC, and they chose Doc.

KJ

Anyone who thinks this guy has any kind of wit is only half right.

Sam

They needed to get the Doc "trade/acquisition" done quickly so they didn't risk Chris Paul being tempted signing with Houston or another team.

Yes, the Clippers and Celtics were barred from making any futher transactions until 7/1/14.

There is no basis to this article at all.
Personally, I wouldn't even have posted this article.
It is completely inaccurate.

tjmakz wrote:They needed to get the Doc "trade/acquisition" done quickly so they didn't risk Chris Paul being tempted signing with Houston or another team.

Yes, the Clippers and Celtics were barred from making any futher transactions until 7/1/14.

There is no basis to this article at all.
Personally, I wouldn't even have posted this article.
It is completely inaccurate.

I post articles with varying degrees of accuracy, which is intentional. I even post articles that I don't particularly agree with because I don't mind reading what someone else has to say, regardless of how absurd it sounds to me.


KJ

k_j_88 wrote:

tjmakz wrote:They needed to get the Doc "trade/acquisition" done quickly so they didn't risk Chris Paul being tempted signing with Houston or another team.

Yes, the Clippers and Celtics were barred from making any futher transactions until 7/1/14.

There is no basis to this article at all.
Personally, I wouldn't even have posted this article.
It is completely inaccurate.

I post articles with varying degrees of accuracy, which is intentional. I even post articles that I don't particularly agree with because I don't mind reading what someone else has to say, regardless of how absurd it sounds to me.


KJ

You are right, there's nothing wrong with posting articles.
For him to miss such a key point which would invalidate the whole idea behind the article, is just absurd.

Commentators in sports and politics are too often idiots. BTW, how did our culture come up with the term commentator? People comment. They don't commentate. One who comments rightfully should be called a commentor.

worcester wrote:Commentators in sports and politics are too often idiots. BTW, how did our culture come up with the term commentator? People comment. They don't commentate. One who comments rightfully should be called a commentor.

Consequently, Americans have been known to create new words or create new meanings for old ones.


KJ

worcester wrote:Commentators in sports and politics are too often idiots. BTW, how did our culture come up with the term commentator? People comment. They don't commentate. One who comments rightfully should be called a commentor.

worcester,

Very commendable of you to point this out.

I guess this makes me a commendator.


bob


.

LOL.

bobheckler wrote:

worcester wrote:Commentators in sports and politics are too often idiots. BTW, how did our culture come up with the term commentator? People comment. They don't commentate. One who comments rightfully should be called a commentor.

worcester,

Very commendable of you to point this out.

I guess this makes me a commendator.


bob


.

I thought when I joined this sight that it was gonna be a commendater free website??

Matty wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

worcester wrote:Commentators in sports and politics are too often idiots. BTW, how did our culture come up with the term commentator? People comment. They don't commentate. One who comments rightfully should be called a commentor.

worcester,

Very commendable of you to point this out.

I guess this makes me a commendator.


bob


.

I thought when I joined this sight that it was gonna be a commendater free website??

Matty,

We're an open, public forum. We should be able to debate the value of commendatiousness.

Don't be such a negationist.


bob


.

How this kid gets his stuff posted on yahoo sports is beyond me? hes got about as much knowledge as a used toothpick.