Should we sign Lance Stephenson if we are inactive during the deadline?

[TheNorthCydeRises]

13 hours ago, NBASupes said:

Yall remember when Northcyde wanted  this man more than I wanted O.J. Mayo. Yeah, we all make mistakes.

No mistake.  Lance is still the type of wing we need in Bud's offense.

People complain about defensive rebounding?  Well, that's something that the dude has no problem doing.

Lance had a horrific year in Charlotte, but has bounced back to be a decent role player with the Clippers.

Would be nice if we could acquire Lance for a Splitter + 2nd round pick. 

If it doesn't work out, we just exercise the team option and let him go in the summer.

[capstone21]

Lance is probably one of the last guys we want on our roster ... talk about a chemistry/locker room disruption ... ...

[TheNorthCydeRises]

 One of the whole points of all of these trade talks, is the lack of chemistry from this team this year, especially from the wings.

Fans too often want the perfect fit, perfect acting player.  If we can get away with acquiring Lance on the cheap, or with a miminal trade, it's a low risk move.

If he's bad, just keep him on the bench and enact the team option.  But if he's good, the BudCox regime may have pulled off one hell of a move.

Edited February 17, 2016 by TheNorthCydeRises

[macdaddy]

I think it's worth a shot for this season.   Trade Splitter for him.   The Clips get the big man that can shoot free throws for next season to come in at the end of games which is something they want.    Lance gives us a defensive wing who at the very least can get under Lebron's skin in the playoffs.    Doc is a good coach for guys who don't really need coaching.    I have more faith in Bud being able to control any attitude problems.  

[macdaddy]

Quote

Since leaving the Indiana Pacers, he’s never been able to prove himself. With the Charlotte Hornets he never fit in and was incredibly inefficient, and now with the Clippers he’s been relegated to the bottom of the bench for most of the season until the last couple of weeks. Despite his extra minutes to show his improved play, though, it still looks like the Clippers’ plan is to move him.

It’s unfair seeing as he’s played pretty well when actually given the chance to do so, but it’s just another failed experiment by GM Doc Rivers.

http://clipperholics.com/2016/02/17/clippers-looking-for-a-bigger-lance-stephenson-trade/

[TheNorthCydeRises]

5 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

http://clipperholics.com/2016/02/17/clippers-looking-for-a-bigger-lance-stephenson-trade/

Well if that's the case, send them Splitter + Moose + 2nd rd pick, for Lance.

Move Edy to back up center.

To me, that's giving up minimal assets for a player that just may help you.

[Duff_Man]

1 hour ago, Hawkmoor said:

I dont like him as a player, so really, i could care less. My point is people thinking the Hawks need to be picky about who they sign, when they have a history of bad decisions.

So making more bad decisions is the answer? Just log out.

[Hawkmoor]

14 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

Well if that's the case, send them Splitter + Moose + 2nd rd pick, for Lance.

Move Edy to back up center.

To me, that's giving up minimal assets for a player that just may help you.

I dont particularly want Lance, but if the Hawks wanted him, thats too much.  Moose or Splitter and a pick is all they would get.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Hawkmoor

[capstone21]

35 minutes ago, TheNorthCydeRises said:

 One of the whole points of all of these trade talks, is the lack of chemistry from this team this year, especially from the wings.

Fans too often want the perfect fit, perfect acting player.  If we can get away with acquiring Lance on the cheap, or with a miminal trade, it's a low risk move.

If he's bad, just keep him on the bench and enact the team option.  But if he's good, the BudCox regime may have pulled off one hell of a move.

Getting him for cheap is not neccessarily a low risk move ... he has been a problem EVERYWHERE he has been ... he has only had an impact in Indiana.

[High5]

If we aren't trading any of our top players then we need to find some way to shake up the roster. This team needs a spark and that's what Lance is. Worrying about a potential negative affect on our chemistry when we're out there dropping games to sub-.500 team after sub-.500 team seems misguided. I'd welcome him to the team if he could be had for a reasonable price. 

[macdaddy]

33 minutes ago, capstone21 said:

Getting him for cheap is not neccessarily a low risk move ... he has been a problem EVERYWHERE he has been ... he has only had an impact in Indiana.

What problems has he caused in LA?   I just think Doc doesn't like guys who actually have to be coached.   He just likes to 'have the players back' and assume they know what to do.  

[RedDawg#8]

3 hours ago, AHF said:

You tell me which good franchises are going to go after Lance.  I predict it will be someone more like Sacto than someone like SA.

Bro the Spurs went after a far worse player in Stephen Jackson back in the day so don't give me that nonsense about great franchises don't sign questionable players. Bud was on that staff with Jackson, I think he could handle Stephenson's so-called bad image

 

[RedDawg#8]

45 minutes ago, High5 said:

If we aren't trading any of our top players then we need to find some way to shake up the roster. This team needs a spark and that's what Lance is. Worrying about a potential negative affect on our chemistry when we're out there dropping games to sub-.500 team after sub-.500 team seems misguided. I'd welcome him to the team if he could be had for a reasonable price. 

THANK YOU!!! This aint last years Hawks. This aint even 2013-14 Hawks. We have a severe toughness and focus issue this season not indicative of a contender. Adding a player who can be the kind of ferocious competitor albeit a media lightning rod cannot do more harm than we have already done to ourselves all season by playing down to inferior opponents and getting bodied by the top teams.

[BigDog90]

If Doc Rivers gives up on you, that's a problem.

[macdaddy]

6 minutes ago, BigDog90 said:

If Doc Rivers gives up on you, that's a problem.

What do you mean?   I think Doc has the opposite rep.   What players has he actually developed?   Hell Deandre felt so loved by Doc that he signed on with the Mavs.  It took the rest of the team to send a friggin rescue mission to keep him.  

[AHF]

34 minutes ago, RedDawg#8 said:

Bro the Spurs went after a far worse player in Stephen Jackson back in the day so don't give me that nonsense about great franchises don't sign questionable players. Bud was on that staff with Jackson, I think he could handle Stephenson's so-called bad image

 

Jackson "far worse"?  What?  

Did you not see him in Atlanta?  That guy wasn't a serious chemistry problem.  He played a positive role on a number of different teams.  It was the exception for him to be disruptive to a team and the norm for him to be a positive add.

If you want to compare him to a former Hawks guard, Isiah Rider is the right one.  

[AUhawksfan]

2 hours ago, macdaddy said:

I think it's worth a shot for this season.   Trade Splitter for him.   The Clips get the big man that can shoot free throws for next season to come in at the end of games which is something they want.    Lance gives us a defensive wing who at the very least can get under Lebron's skin in the playoffs.    Doc is a good coach for guys who don't really need coaching.    I have more faith in Bud being able to control any attitude problems.  

I actually agree here.  If he can be had for little lets give him a chance.  Bud won't let the guy affect our team so why not give it a shot?  Maybe he just needs to be around some hard workers.  He hasn't been an issue for LA this season and his numbers look good though it's a small sample size.  We know he has defense too.

Speaking of chemistry, has it really been all that good this season?  Why is everyone so worried about screwing up this so called team chemistry?  What would we really be missing?  It's not like we're on a 60 win pace like last season.

[RedDawg#8]

25 minutes ago, AHF said:

Jackson "far worse"?  What?  

Did you not see him in Atlanta?  That guy wasn't a serious chemistry problem.  He played a positive role on a number of different teams.  It was the exception for him to be disruptive to a team and the norm for him to be a positive add.

If you want to compare him to a former Hawks guard, Isiah Rider is the right one.  

Lest we forget the whole Pistons Pacers brawl??? Granted Artest started it, Jackson got involved and inevitably suspended 30 games as a result. Last I checked Lance has done nothing close to that his entire career.  I don't even think Lance has ever been suspended. Chemistry wise is just that, chemistry, certain mixed parts work together better then others. Jackson was a great teammate but he had a enough issues for any franchise to not touch him yet the Spurs did TWICE, and Bud was there as his coach both times.

Edited February 17, 2016 by RedDawg#8

[AHF]

10 minutes ago, RedDawg#8 said:

Lest we forget the whole Pistons Pacers brawl??? Granted Artest started it, Jackson got involved and inevitably suspended 30 games as a result. Last I checked Lance has done nothing close to that his entire career.  I don't even think Lance has ever been suspended. Chemistry wise is just that, chemistry, certain mixed parts work together better then others. Jackson was a great teammate but he had a enough issues for any franchise to not touch him yet the Spurs did TWICE, and Bud was there as his coach both times.

Yes.  The brawl is all you have to work with there.  By that rationale there are a ton of "bad guys" like Jermaine O'Neal, Ben Wallace, Reggie Miller, Chauncey Billups, etc. who were all suspended as part of that incident.

The reality is that Jackson was not a real problem in terms of on court chemistry or lockerroom chemistry.  Jackson was easy to fit in on the court - a highly efficient shooter who spread the floor, didn't dominate the ball and played D.  He was, as you say, a "great teammate"  who was well liked in the locker room.

I'm happy to listen to an argument that Lance's chemistry problems are overblown but this is a terrible comparison.

[Guest]

I'm scared that Lance is a loose cannon, however, I've always heard that you can have 1 knucklehead on your squad but not 2. Haven't payed much attention to Lance this year but I did see a boxscore from him a few weeks ago...his line was something like 6/6 FG for umpteen points in about 20 minutes of work. And if, a big if, we get to meet the Cavs again in the playoffs he can try his best to annoy LeKid while we run our system on them all night long. I'm still in the 50/50 camp though...part of me wants to give it a shot and another part of me is scared.