Popovich pops off on Grizzlies' controversial swap

[TwinFlowers]

Anyway, the point of this exercise wasn't to give a bunch of trades that would actually happen. The point was to demonstrate that there were other deals out there that were better for Memphis that weren't offered, weren't accepted, weren't pursued, whatever.

but if a trade isn't realistic, if it's just not going to ever happen, why bother with it? i mean, how does that further any discussion?

i'll admit to being as surprised as anyone when the trade went down. no lie. but the more i looked into it, and especially the more i read about CHI just botching this chance for more than a year, the more i began to realize there just weren't a heck of a lot of option for MEM.

when you start looking at teams needing gasol, teams willing to assume big dollars, expiring contracts, players on rookie payscale for a few more years, and teams willing to give up picks . . . well the field of potential deals started to shrink down quickly.

and the LAL deal didn't look so surprising after 2 or 3 days of thinking on it.

i think i've beaten on this topic enough. thanks for the chance to get your take on it, i appreciate you taking the time and you argued your case well. i wish a few more had chimed in but i did catch this thread pretty late in its life.

i don't agree with you, but that's all right.

[ChumpDumper]

What we have to ask now is why would Memphis literally take a deal that is incredibly shitty for them if other better deals existed out there.
It's not a shitty deal for Heisley's bottom line, and considering the pressure he is said to put on his GMs, there may not have been a whole lot of time to attempt to build alternative deals.

[conqueso]

SEA is not taking on any salary, period. they're looking to build through the draft. pau runs counter to both of those goals. he adds salary and adds wins and is a proven non-fan magnet.

he does nothing that meshes with what that team wants to do.

Why is that a problem? That's the only thing coming back to Memphis in the Lakers deal.

well assuming i agree (which i don't) i guess that's the problem . . . where are all these superior deals at? frankly, i don't see them.

and wasn't that the issue? that MEM took a grossly inferior deal, for some mysterious reason that nobody can seem to articulate, to send gasol to the lakes?

i'm just asking what these deals are, is all.

you know, the really good ones. that MEM passed up.

I listed about seven. And you read them. And wrote responses.

These deals aren't good, and they break down for a variety of reasons, but all of them are better than the deal the Grizzlies ended up making. Most of those other deals have problems that make them unlikely to happen, but I don't see any of those perceived difficulties as significant as the ones you would get if we were talking about Gasol for Brown-Crittenton-Marc Gasol two weeks ago before the deal was done. Had we been talking about it then, we could have listed a plethora of reasons why is was a horrible deal and would never happen, reasons far more compelling than "Seattle wants to turn down getting the third best center in the league for peanuts so they can rebuild through sucking bad enough to get high draft picks."

[conqueso]

It's not a shitty deal for Heisley's bottom line, and considering the pressure he is said to put on his GMs, there may not have been a whole lot of time to attempt to build alternative deals.

Right, but there are deals that are a little better for his bottom line and give him much better players than Kwame Brown, Crittenton and Marc Gasol. It's just hard to imagine that if, two weeks ago, the Grizzlies announced to the league:

BASKETBALL PLAYER FOR SALE!
7 Feet Tall All-Star! 240 lbs.!
Can Put Up 20 and 9 with a Block and a Half!
Gold Medal and MVP at World Championships!
Not a Total Pussy!
PRICE: Shitty expiring contracts O.B.O.!!!!!

that there wouldn't have been a whole slew of teams out there desperately rooting through their closet full of shitty contracts about to expire to get a top three center, especially in a league with a dearth of talent at center. I mean, those deals are out there, and there have to be teams who would be willing to take a "gamble" on Gasol if it was going to cost them virtually nothing.

So, I ask again, why did the Lakers win out?

[ChumpDumper]

The deals you put forth -- the one's that actually work -- aren't really that much better.

And saying Gasol costs "virtually nothing" is silly. He costs 60 million very real dollars.

[Holt's Cat]

If Gasol doesn't work out then that's one very large price tag. At least Shaq was worth it for a while.

[conqueso]

The deals you put forth -- the one's that actually work -- aren't really that much better.

And saying Gasol costs "virtually nothing" is silly. He costs 60 million very real dollars.

You know I didn't mean his salary, I meant the opportunity to trade for a marquee player, which doesn't just come around all that often and usually means the other team has to cut off and arm and a leg.

And of course the deals I put forth are much better. Virtually any deal would be better than Kwame Brown (who's only role is to continue to exist until the end of the season when his contract expires and he can be kicked to the curb), Critteton (who really isn't as good as 2Flowers is trying to make us believe), and Marc Gasol (a totally unproven commodity who is developing much slower than his older brother).

[ChumpDumper]

If getting expiring deals is all that really matters, why are you arguing the on court value of Kwame Brown or any other players? Good job leaving out the draft picks too. Anyway, looking at it solely from a basketball standpoint is silly. Heisley wanted that deal off his books, and probably wanted it off a long time ago. Wallace wanted to keep his job, so voila.

[conqueso]

If getting expiring deals is all that really matters, why are you arguing the on court value of Kwame Brown or any other players? Good job leaving out the draft picks too. Anyway, looking at it solely from a basketball standpoint is silly. Heisley wanted that deal off his books, and probably wanted it off a long time ago. Wallace wanted to keep his job, so voila.

Dude, the draft picks are going to be virtually the same whichever team they come from. I know you're smarter than this, so I can't figure out why you still don't understand this point.

If expiring deals were all that mattered, there were other teams with more attractive expiring deals, and at least a few of those teams would have loved to have a top three center on their team. Yet the Lakers got him, and other GMs who had shown serious interest in Gasol in the past are saying that they weren't informed as to his new, discounted availability. That raises questions.

If expiring deals weren't all that mattered, there were other teams with more attractive players, but the Grizzlies didn't deal with them either.

I agree that they wanted to get rid of Gasol's contract and found someone who was willing to give them shitty players with attractive contracts. But you have to wonder why other teams with better players and more attractive contracts weren't a part of this deal, and why some of them (allegedly) weren't even told that the Grizzlies were now willing to basically give Gasol away.

[ChumpDumper]

How is one expiring deal more attractive than another?

And why is anyone under obligation to contact every team when a player is available?

Wallace -- Heisley -- got what he wanted.

[TwinFlowers]

do you really think MEM cares that kwame sucks ass?

do you think they wanted someone to come in and help them rack up some extra W's this year?

that's the last thing they wanted. the fact that kwame isn't going to help is a plus.

MEM wanted to shed K. MEM wants a top 3 pick this year, with a good shot at the #1 overall. hell, kwame sucking is a plus.

your problem is you think like a spurs fan over the past decade. you're used to a front office making good decisions and trying to keep a superior product on the floor.

that ain't the grizz right now.

[conqueso]

How is one expiring deal more attractive than another?

And why is anyone under obligation to contact every team when a player is available?

Wallace -- Heisley -- got what he wanted.

This seems too obvious to be correct, but for a team trying to keep payroll down to make the team more marketable to buyers, an expiring deal worth less is more attractive than an expiring deal worth more. Conversely, for a team trying to clear cap space to chase free agents some time in the future, an expiring deal worth more is more attractive than an expiring deal worth less.

And Chump, there's a difference between contacting every team and contacting some teams which have shown steady interest in a particular player over a long period of time when that player all of a sudden becomes available at like 75% off.

I'm of course not criticizing Memphis for not contacting every team in the league about Pau's availability. I'm criticizing them for (allegedly) contacting only one team about his availability when other teams who could have offered better deals were out there and had expressed interest in Gasol.

Heisley might have gotten what he wanted, but he could have easily gotten better than he what got and more of what he wanted. There are really only three explanations for why that is the case:

1. The people who work in the Grizzlies front office are fucking dumb;
2. Gasol is actually poison and despite his sparkling resume, every team out there except the Lakers knew something about him that we don't which destroys his value; or
3. Shady dealing.

Can you think of a fourth explanation?

[conqueso]

do you really think MEM cares that kwame sucks ass?

do you think they wanted someone to come in and help them rack up some extra W's this year?

that's the last thing they wanted. the fact that kwame isn't going to help is a plus.

MEM wanted to shed K. MEM wants a top 3 pick this year, with a good shot at the #1 overall. hell, kwame sucking is a plus.

your problem is you think like a spurs fan over the past decade. you're used to a front office making good decisions and trying to keep a superior product on the floor.

that ain't the grizz right now.

I understand the Grizzlies tanking to get a high pick, and that makes sense, but if any organization were trading away their best player in order to start over and try to get some money off the books, I still think they would want players who are better (or have more potential) than players who suck. The reason is obvious: if you have a player with an expiring deal who sucks that you're just going to kick to the curb, that player isn't good for anything other than their expiring deal. But if you've got another player with a hypothetically identical expiring deal who sucks but has potential to become something good, that player is good for more than their expiring deal. That player could become a project or could be good icing for a future trade. In other words, they could be worth resigning if and when the Grizzlies attempt to become a better team as opposed to a marketable team. Another related reason why you try to get the better player even if you're trying to shed salary and tank is that the better player might actually become a good or great player with a change of scenery or a new coach or new teammates or whatever. Kwame Brown will never be anything; he is awful, the biggest 1st pick disappointment ever. Someone else, like Maxiell for instance, who sucks now could become good later on, or could become a good fit for the Grizzlies' system. When you get Kwame, you have no chance of a pleasant surprise. When you get someone else, you could have that chance. And that's why, even if you're intentionally trying to suck and get rid of salaries by trading your best player, you still try to maximize what you get out of that trade.

[conqueso]

This seems too obvious to be correct, but for a team trying to keep payroll down to make the team more marketable to buyers, an expiring deal worth less is more attractive than an expiring deal worth more. Conversely, for a team trying to clear cap space to chase free agents some time in the future, an expiring deal worth more is more attractive than an expiring deal worth less.

This paragraph doesn't make any sense. Disregard it. The point I was trying to make is that an expiring contract for a lot of money is more attractive than an expiring contract for a smaller amount of money for a team like the Grizzlies who is trying to get their payroll as close to the minimum as possible.

[Supreme_Being]

It's hard to be good when your 2 of your 3 best players were constantly injured.


Very hard, indeed.

[nkdlunch]

I don't like too many superstar trades in a season. There is something wrong there.

If this keeps hapenning Dynasties will be a thing of the past as there will be a new champion every season. Spurs might be the last dynasty and Duncan the last emperor

[101A]

I don't like too many superstar trades in a season. There is something wrong there.

If this keeps hapenning Dynasties will be a thing of the past as there will be a new champion every season. Spurs might be the last dynasty and Duncan the last emperorUmmmm, no.

There are going to be dynasties. Pay attention to the destinations of the superstar's (at least those with gas in the tank), would you

[Soul_Patch]

It seems Stupid and Retarded...OOPS, I mean Dazed and Confused and the rest of the frontrunning Laker people don't understand the history of their own team that well.

The success of the Lakers, outside of the the championships of the old Minneapolis Lakers, has been based upon taking advantage of the stupid GMs of stuggling teams.

Look at the trades made for centers. Acquiring Wilt Chamberlain for three players none of you have heard of from the 76ers in 1970. An NBA title came in 1972.

Acquiring Kareem Abdul-Jabbar from the Bucks for four players (the best of which were Junior Bridgeman and Brian Winters) - not even remotely equal compensation. Kareem was the MVP of the league many times in LA and five NBA titles were won during Jabbar's tenure as a Laker.

Let's go to 1996 - stealing Shaquille O'Neal from an Orlando Magic team offering Shaq more money than LA. In the same year getting Kobe Bryant from the Hornets for Vlade Divac in his contract year - the Charlotte Hornets end up getting one year out of Vlade and he walks to Sacramento as a FA. Once again - getting outstanding players for next to nothing or garbage.

Do you how the Lakers got Magic Johnson? A completely washed up Gail Goodrich signed as a FA with the New Orleans Jazz in 1976 and the NBA League office decided (as was the case at the time) that the Jazz should compensate LA with a No 1 pick in 1979 - which turned out to be the 1st pick overall and Magic Johnson. Once again, a HOFer for garbage.

How did James Worthy get to be a Laker? In 1980, the Cleveland Cavaliers just had to have Don Ford in and a low Laker 1981 1st rounder for Butch Lee and a 1982 first rounder. Low and behold, that 1982 pick turns into the 1st overall again and James Worthy - another HOFer for garbage. See a pattern here? The Lakers essentially have been getting something for nothing since 1970. It sure helps you stay on top when you can do that time after time after time after time. BTW, Byron Scott, another really good player, got to the Lakers in 1984 in a way similar to the Worthy deal.

For Spurs fans back in the 1980s such as me it was extremely frustrating to see this kind of stuff go on and know your team had little to no chance of beating the Lakers in the playoffs. We Spurs fans are a little sensitive when it comes to LA getting something for nothing way too many times.

As far as SA tanking games, I don't think the 1986-1987 Spurs tanked. That team was terrible and lost a ton of games. The Spurs lucked out and won the lottery and got David Robinson. A sidenote - when SA got the rights to DRob, none other than Brent Barry's dad (HOFer and NBA commentator) Rick said that Robinson should not sign with the Spurs, wait two years (until 1989) and sign as an unrestricted free agent with which team? You guessed it - the LAKERS! I'm glad David had some integrity and a sense of obligation to the city San Antonio.

The 1996-1997 Spurs team also stunk because of Robinson's broken foot and a rash of injuries to lesser players on the squad like Chuck Person. Is it possible Robinson was held out late in the season? Yes, but that still didn't guarantee anything on the draft pick. SA just got lucky again and won the chance to draft Duncan. San Antonio at least had to endure really bad seasons to get Robinson and Duncan - they did not get the free ride the Lakers got through the years.

The team that is responsible for the lottery we have today (and not the old coin flip with the two worst teams) is the Houston Rockets, who had the first pick in 1983 (Ralph Sampson) and 1984 (Akeem Olajuwon). The 83-84 Rockets team coached by Bill Fitch was playing Elvin Hayes (in his last year) 40 minutes a game late in the season and doing other weird stuff with the lineup to get a 50% chance at the first pick in '84. Without the Rockets misdeeds, the Spurs likely would not have the 4 NBA championships we currently enjoy today.

Dazed and Confused, the Chuckster should have blamed his own former team for the lottery system and not busted the Spur's chops when he made that 1998 lockeroom quote about the Spurs cheating. Sir Charles doesn't always think when he speaks.

One last thing - guess which team came in 2nd place for the opportunity to draft Kareem in 1969 (by coin flip) and David Robinson in 1987 (by lotto)? The answer is - the poor Phoenix Suns! That should make most of us on this board smile.


I like how the most inciteful, fact filled statement of this entire thread was completely ignored and overlooked.


fuck the facts, lets have more words like CHEATING and TANKERS and COLLUSION in giant bold letters...its so much easier than actually reading and comprehending.

[Soul_Patch]

kudos to harry callahan btw...a breath of fresh air in a sea of fuckin retards.


Alot of that i knew, but there was some stuff in there i had not heard before.

you learn something new every day eh?

[TwinFlowers]

I'm of course not criticizing Memphis for not contacting every team in the league about Pau's availability. I'm criticizing them for (allegedly) contacting only one team about his availability when other teams who could have offered better deals were out there and had expressed interest in Gasol.

if you read sam smith, even he admits MEM was in contact with CHI and 'several other teams' the week of the trade.

i think he's full of it in some respects, covering for pax WRT what CHI was offering last season, but why would he BS about something like contact between MEM and the league?

MEM may have been snowed by mitch kup talking with CHI about ben . . . wallace already said he was worried about a LAL/CHI deal taking kwame's ending K out of play.

[ChumpDumper]

Heisley might have gotten what he wanted, but he could have easily gotten better than he what got and more of what he wanted. There are really only three explanations for why that is the case:

1. The people who work in the Grizzlies front office are fucking dumb;
2. Gasol is actually poison and despite his sparkling resume, every team out there except the Lakers knew something about him that we don't which destroys his value; or
3. Shady dealing.

Can you think of a fourth explanation?Yeah.

4. You are clearly overstating the deals that were actually available to Wallace, who was clearly under orders to cut payroll immediately. Your premise is that Heisley got what he wanted, and you can stop right there. That's all that matters.

The point I was trying to make is that an expiring contract for a lot of money is more attractive than an expiring contract for a smaller amount of money for a team like the Grizzlies who is trying to get their payroll as close to the minimum as possible.The minimum this season is $41.7 million. If the cap grows at the same rate it did last season, next year's minimum will be $43.6 million. The Grizzlies' committed salaries for next season currently total $44.0 million. In effect, this trade got them to within one minimum salary of the minimum payroll allowed.

Pretty good salary dump.

[picnroll]

Yeah.

4. You are clearly overstating the deals that were actually available to Wallace, who was clearly under orders to cut payroll immediately. Your premise is that Heisley got what he wanted, and you can stop right there. That's all that matters.
The minimum this season is $41.7 million. If the cap grows at the same rate it did last season, next year's minimum will be $43.6 million. The Grizzlies' committed salaries for next season currently total $44.0 million. In effect, this trade got them to within one minimum salary of the minimum payroll allowed.

Pretty good salary dump.
Which will enable Memphis to grossly overpay for the only FAs willing to come and assume an even worse contract for a player with lesser talent than Gasol. Sounds like a great move by the Grizz to me.

[ChumpDumper]

Which will enable Memphis to grossly overpay for the only FAs willing to come and assume an even worse contract for a player with lesser talent than Gasol. Sounds like a great move by the Grizz to me.Or just pay the lottery picks they will be picking up the next few years. And that won't be Heisley's problem, will it? You guys act like this kind of thing has never happened before with a team that is for sale.

[picnroll]

Or just pay the lottery picks they will be picking up the next few years. And that won't be Heisley's problem, will it? You guys act like this kind of thing has never happened before with a team that is for sale.
I'm not saying it's collusion but I am saying it's stupidity. Even if this were the best deal the Grizz owner could swing now, it's been said he's wanted to sell for some time and over the past year there likely have been far, far better deals he could have swung to enhance the value of his team in a sale.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying it's collusion but I am saying it's stupidity. Even if this were the best deal the Grizz owner could swing now, it's been said he's wanted to sell for some time and over the past year there likely have been far, far better deals he could have swung to enhance the value of his team in a sale.Of course it's a stupid trade if you are looking at it from a basketball standpoint, but this trade isn't about basketball at all. The timing and content point to its being solely about business.

[101A]

New Orleans and Portland.

THEY played their cards right; built their teams with savvy draft picks and trades and careful cap management. Their time is here or coming soon. Imagine TWO small markets vying for supremacy in the West for the foreseeable future! Sounds like a Stern dream come true. Doesn't it?

[101A]

The timing and content point to its being solely about business.THIS I agree with.

[Medvedenko]

Of course it's a stupid trade if you are looking at it from a basketball standpoint, but this trade isn't about basketball at all. The timing and content point to its being solely about business.

Precisely.....