Not that I agree or disagree but how many years is the minimum to say a player has had an impact on a team worthy of a number retired?
I 100% agree. But if we retired numbers based on the early years scenarios; we wouldn't have any numbers left to give out (overstatement). As said above... There was maybe 3 numbers that should be retired. Allen only retired 2 of them.
There is a Williams wearing #7. Rots number Gould be retired? I mean, could someone translate that into English? Who has turned on whom? Not sure why Mo Williams would have special loyalty to Brandon Roy.
Rasta is hellbent on convincing us that Lillard sucks and that we need someone to fill in for Dame's many weaknesses, not compliment him.. Why he thinks anyone believes he knows the slightest bit about non-Euro hoops is beyond me, but if he keeps repeating that shit, maybe the shtick will stick.
Who pissed in your cheerios? Really, not only are your arguments falling flat with the crowd - (boo!, rotten fruit), but the negative nancy act is falling flat as well. Waaaaaaa! we signed a decent player for a bargain price. I haaaate depth! It ruins it for the rookies and they will cry - and that makes me sad. Really a lame argument. This team is NOT tanking. Get over it. I have advocated the team tanking since the end of last season and still think they should. But, nobody on the Blazer's asked my opinion. And they have gone in a different direction. There is no point in arguing they should - because as of right now, it is TOO LATE to have a successful and quick tank. The summer is winding down and the move moves all done. The trade deadline will be too late (I know some think if the season goes sideways you can easily make all the tank moves at the trade deadline and be in as good a shape if you had done it in the summer - but that is not true) It's done. No sense in ignoring the obvious.
At some point, some time, the insanity for the reasons we retire a number has to change. I don't believe a lot of those numbers should be retired. Should Roy's be retired? I don't know, is he a future hall of famer? Due to the length of his career, I doubt it. Had he kept playing, he probably would be. But I think the organization needs to raise the standards for a number to be retired. I probably wouldn't retire his number.
If Chris Paul leads the Clippers to the title this year and then blows his knee out in the conference finals next year and the Clippers lose and CP retires should the CLIPPERS retire his number? How many good and successful years is enough?
Well said. If Roy had at least 3-4 more years like he did 3 season's ago; he would definitely be in consideration.
The fact he won a title is deserving. How organizations will go their entire life without ever winning a title?
Maybe the fact that he is the Clippers best point guard of all time would warrant it. But I think it's safe to say that if he finishes his existing contract at 85% at the level he has played in the past and his team remains pretty strong they will be better than that. Second, Third, Final around. How many times have the Clippers reached these heights in the past? At 85% of his current playing level (On Average) for five years. That would be warranted.
I like this signing as it gives a vet presence with the 2nd unit, that is pretty dang young. The idea of having CJ running things out there with Barton kind of scared the bajesus out of me. Hopefully MO can get Myers and Trob included in the offense.
Lucas only played for the Blazers for 3 years of his prime, though. Without Walton, the Blazers don't sniff a title, as was proven when Bill when out after the 50-10 start and the team fell apart.
