Iavaroni responds to Pop's stinging criticism

[DynastyBuilder]

Thought this was interesting, if it's already been posted my apologies.

Memphis' Iavaroni takes high road after Spurs' Popovich lashes out
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3239478

[ShoogarBear]

Yeah, it was posted in the Pop thread, I think.

My answer: WGAF what Iavaroni thinks? He had no input that mattered. We might as well ask Hubie Brown and Elvis what they think.

[DynastyBuilder]

We might as well ask Hubie Brown and Elvis what they think.
agreed

[remingtonbo2001]

We might as well ask Hubie Brown and Elvis what they think.

Link?

[NuGGeTs-FaN]

neither coach should have commented.

[jag]

neither coach should have commented.

Agreed, it's actually surprising that pop said something about it...commenting accomplished nothing.

[intlspurshk]

That's statment brings no advantage to SPURS!!!

[JamStone]

Surprising Pop said anything. He's the type that would probably scoff at another coach criticizing something the Spurs did as being unfair. Say a coach criticized the Spurs for acquiring Michael Finley after he got his buy out from Dallas as being unfair and that Finley shouldn't be able to choose a title contender. It's just something I would not have expected from Pop.

[MannyIsGod]

Surprising Pop said anything. He's the type that would probably scoff at another coach criticizing something the Spurs did as being unfair. Say a coach criticized the Spurs for acquiring Michael Finley after he got his buy out from Dallas as being unfair and that Finley shouldn't be able to choose a title contender. It's just something I would not have expected from Pop.trying to compare that trade with a free agent acquisition is laughable at best.

[ploto]

My answer: WGAF what Iavaroni thinks? He had no input that mattered.
Both he and Pop are COACHES.

[ShoogarBear]

Both he and Pop are COACHES.If you don't understand the difference between Pop's position in the Spurs' organization, and Iavaroni's position on the Grizzlies, you are beyond hope.

[ploto]

They are both coaches who should have nothing to say about the trades that other teams make. Pop was out of line. Period.

Actually, if anything, Iavaroni has MORE right to comment as he coached Gasol and knows of the issues that were going on with him both on and off the court.

[Budkin]

trying to compare that trade with a free agent acquisition is laughable at best.

Agreed. Worst take ever.

[ShoogarBear]

:lmao

This is pointless, but here's just a little clue to get you started:

Pop had RC's job first, and gave it to him, and it's safe to say that RC doesn't have the power to fire Pop, and Pop has substantial input into personnel decisions.

Chris Wallace gave Iavaroni his job, and it's safe to say that Iavaroni has minimal-to-no input on personnel decisions at this early point in his career.

[ploto]

But Pop has NO input into decisions made by the Grizzlies and the Lakers. NONE. So his opinion means NOTHING. He was out of line in making comments about it.

As for the history of Pop and RC- I know it very well. That is not the point in this dicussion. The point is that you claimed that Iavaroni has no right to comment on a trade by the Grizzlies but somehow Pop does. :lol

[MannyIsGod]

They are both coaches who should have nothing to say about the trades that other teams make. Pop was out of line. Period.

Actually, if anything, Iavaroni has MORE right to comment as he coached Gasol and knows of the issues that were going on with him both on and off the court.And maybe Pop knows something about offers presented to the Grizzlies that you don't?

Even if he doesn't, how the hell is he out of line by giving his opinion on the trade?

[ShoogarBear]

How many trades has Pop made?

How many has Iavaroni made?

/thread

[ShoogarBear]

Chris Wallace is the one who should be answering Pop. But he apparently doesn't have the balls to do that.

[MannyIsGod]

But Pop has NO input into decisions made by the Grizzlies and the Lakers. NONE. So his opinion means NOTHING. He was out of line in making comments about it.

As for the history of Pop and RC- I know it very well. That is not the point in this dicussion. The point is that you claimed that Iavaroni has no right to comment on a trade by the Grizzlies but somehow Pop does. :lolActually Shoog never said he didn't have a right to comment. He was saying that we really don't give a shit what he says seeing as he would in all likelyhood have had no part in the decision to make the trade.

Reading comprehension, Ploto.

[MannyIsGod]

Chris Wallace dared NBA officials to go on the record with their dislike of the trade. Pop answered the challenge. Wallace apparently didn't really mean to throw down the gauntlet after all

[Spurs Dynasty 21]

Lakers are already and VERY good team, when Bynum gets back it will get real scary

[BillsCarnage]

neither coach should have commented.

Agreed, but Pop came off as whinny bitch for his comments. Ivaronni had no say in the matter.

[timmy21_4rings]

Both he and Pop are COACHES.

I may not agree with Pop's comments. Here Pop has talked as a VP and not as a Coach.

[ShoogarBear]

To recap:

FIRST, Wallace whined about people saying things about the trade off the record.

THEN, Pop responded on the record.

NOW, Wallace cowers in silence and has Iavaroni put out some weak sauce.

[mikeanthony21]

Yeah, it was posted in the Pop thread, I think.

My answer: WGAF what Iavaroni thinks? He had no input that mattered. We might as well ask Hubie Brown and Elvis what they think.

Popovich was being sarcastic.

[picnroll]

But Pop has NO input into decisions made by the Grizzlies and the Lakers. NONE. So his opinion means NOTHING. He was out of line in making comments about it.

As for the history of Pop and RC- I know it very well. That is not the point in this dicussion. The point is that you claimed that Iavaroni has no right to comment on a trade by the Grizzlies but somehow Pop does. :lol
He said "the trade was incomprehensible". The trade is incomprehensible. WTF are you talking about?

[ploto]

No idea why a double post

[ploto]

Buck Harvey: For Spurs, what goes around went through Memphis


Kevin Garnett isn't expected to play today, which is fitting. To the Spurs, KG is out of the West and out of mind.

The Spurs are more concerned with someone who went the other direction in a trade, and Gregg Popovich addressed that Friday night with passive-aggressive humor. No, he's not in awe with how the Memphis Grizzlies do business.

But as the Spurs shake their heads, others shook theirs two decades ago. Then the Spurs were the Grizzlies, foundering and looking to save a few dollars. And when they dealt a tall, smooth player named Mychal Thompson to the same Lakers who now have Pau Gasol, they irritated a franchise just as Memphis irritates them.

What goes around, George Gervin always said.

Thompson wasn't on Gasol's level. He'd once been a No. 1 overall pick, but injuries had slowed him. That's how the Spurs were able to obtain him. Thompson averaged about a dozen points in the half season he played in San Antonio, and he was in his 30s and going nowhere.

That's the astonishing angle of the latest Lakers' triumph. They not only landed a 7-footer who can shoot and pass, they also got a 27-year-old just entering his prime.

No wonder Popovich has mentioned this trade the past few days, the latest coming Friday. "What they did in Memphis is beyond comprehension," Popovich said then. "There should be a trade committee that can scratch all trades that make no sense. I just wish I had been on a trade committee that oversees NBA trades. I'd like to elect myself to that committee. I would have voted no to the L.A. trade."

Popovich said it with humor, but there was an edge there, too. He rarely criticizes other coaches or franchises, so "beyond comprehension" is some leap.

It also doesn't help the next time R.C. Buford calls the Grizzlies. A trade for Mike Miller sure got stickier, didn't it?

Popovich was on target, of course. Memphis created cap space and got draft picks, but they will be pressed to sign anyone better than Gasol. So Popovich wonders why, as do fans. Even letters to the L.A. Times wonder if Jerry West, recently a Memphis exec, conspired to make this happen.

They guessed the same last summer when Kevin McHale traded Garnett to his former Celtics teammate, Danny Ainge. Did McHale give a superstar to Ainge because they are buddies?

McHale laughed at the suggestion last week. "First of all, I have an owner," McHale told a Boston newspaper. "Then on my staff I have like seven guys. So for that whole thing to happen, it would have had to be, 'OK, this is what we're doing because we like Danny, but you can't tell the owner that.' Yeah, like that could ever happen. Are you kidding me?"

McHale instead did what the Grizzlies did. He took a losing hand and made it worse, with the hope that someday he will be in line for new cards.

The Spurs faced the same in 1987. They were on their way to 28 wins, as well as a franchise-saving moment. They didn't know it then, but David Robinson waited for them in the lottery.

By midseason they saw only failure and red ink. So the Spurs traded Thompson, and, in retrospect, they got a lot for him. The Lakers gave up players, a couple of draft picks and cash.

Still, when the deal was made, no one saw that. Thompson could be soft, just as Gasol can be now, but Thompson also had some of Gasol's gifts. He was 6-foot-10 with touch, and he was a bright guy.

Thompson also filled a Lakers' hole, spelling Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on the Showtime front line. In those years, when the Lakers and Celtics were the elite, he was precisely the piece the Lakers needed.

McHale felt it as much as anyone. He and Thompson, once teammates at the University of Minnesota, were matched against the other.

Thompson had one especially effective night in the 1987 Finals. And afterward, with the Lakers on their way to another title, Larry Bird went to the postgame podium with his own passive-aggressive humor.

Bird blamed the Spurs.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/columnists/bharvey/stories/MYSA021008.1Cbuck_0210.en.37cc151.html

[ChumpDumper]

But ploto has NO input into decisions made by the Spurs and the Raptors. NONE. So her opinion means NOTHING. She was out of line in making comments about it.

I like Mad Libs.

[td4mvp21]

Why is ploto such an annoying bitch?

[CubanMustGo]

Why is ploto such an annoying bitch?

Ploto will never say anything decent about SA because they traded her dreamboat Rasho to Toronto. Ever since basically every post of hers has been some negative take on SA.

Just go away, Ploto. Nobody gives a damn.

[LakeShow]

Ploto just OWNED this thread! :toast

If you live in a glass house, don't throw no stones!

[Dingle Barry]

Ploto, I hope you die.

[JamStone]

trying to compare that trade with a free agent acquisition is laughable at best.


No it's not.

And, the comparison is mostly about a coach criticizing another team for organizational decisions they make that don't directly affect that team. Still surprised Pop said anything about it.

[ShoogarBear]

If Wallace hadn't said anything, Pop would't have said anything. He should have kept his yap shut.

And comparing a free agent signing to a trade is absolutely absurd.

[JamStone]

That's because you and MIG don't understand it's not about comparing a free agent signing to a trade. It's comparing a GM of a team not involved in a personnel move by two other teams criticizing one of those teams for that personnel move. And, I was merely saying it surprised me that Pop said anything at all.

[MannyIsGod]

No it's not.

And, the comparison is mostly about a coach criticizing another team for organizational decisions they make that don't directly affect that team. Still surprised Pop said anything about it.It absolutely is. When someone is a free agent, it is impossible for parties to colude to send a player somewhere. Finley was bought out, then every team in the leauge had the same opporunity to sign him. You could question how stupid Cuban was to buy him out and let him go to a division rival all you want, but there was absolutely nothing to question from the Spurs end of things. You're going to question them for signing an available player? What the fuck? It was Finely's decision where to go and only his.

It isn't like Pop called a press confrence to voice his displeasure on the trade. He was asked by a reporter about the situation. If his opinion means nothing on the trade, then why are he and ohter coaches and front offic personal being questioned on the subject by repoters? Do you think they're throwing press confrences to give their views on the subject? Of course not.

[ShoogarBear]

Trying to compare a legal free agent signing to a trade with questionable motivations defies all logic.

[MannyIsGod]

That's because you and MIG don't understand it's not about comparing a free agent signing to a trade. It's comparing a GM of a team not involved in a personnel move by two other teams criticizing one of those teams for that personnel move. And, I was merely saying it surprised me that Pop said anything at all.Thats fine and all if if your point was to focus on front office coments then perhaps you shouldn't have used a free agent signing in your example but rather a trade?

You may have inteded something else than what was presented but there is a reason that we are focusing on this and thats because of what you said.

In any effect, Wallace basicaly called out the entirety of NBA front office personel. I'm guessing that Pop was already irritated with how much stronger Wallace managed to make the Lakers with what he obviously considred a bonehead move so when confronted with what he perceived to be Wallace's gal he answered the challenge.

Pop is obviously the kind of person who can become irritated quite quickly with people. Anyone who has seen him in a press confrence should know this. So when Wallace throws out this challenge I can see where a person of Pop's personality would respond. You really shoudln't be suprised at all.

[JamStone]

Trying to compare a legal free agent signing to a trade with questionable motivations defies all logic.


The trade in question was also legal under the CBA. You're criticizing the point of my comments.

[ShoogarBear]

The trade in question was also legal under the CBA. You're criticizing the point of my comments.Not if there was collusion involved.

[JamStone]

Thats fine and all ...


Not concerned "how" you perceived my comments. My point stands as is.

Didn't say Pop was the type not to get irritated. My surprise is that he made a public statement of his irritations that consisted of criticizing another GM and franchise regarding an organizational decision that had no direct effect on the Spurs. That's not Pop's style. That's why I stated my surprise. You can criticize what you perceive is a poor example on my part all you want. That's not the point of my comment. You don't like the example, too bad. Get over that part of my comment.

[JamStone]

Not if there was collusion involved.


Commissioner Stern and the NBA front office determines that. They found none, thereby the trade was approved. Mere suggestion that there was collusion does not make it so.

[MannyIsGod]

Not concerned "how" you perceived my comments. My point stands as is.

Didn't say Pop was the type not to get irritated. My surprise is that he made a public statement of his irritations that consisted of criticizing another GM and franchise regarding an organizational decision that had no direct effect on the Spurs. That's not Pop's style. That's why I stated my surprise. You can criticize what you perceive is a poor example on my part all you want. That's not the point of my comment. You don't like the example, too bad. Get over that part of my comment.:lol If you're not concered with how people percieve your comments then why make them? For your own consumption? Talk to yourself often?

The entire second portion of my last post was directed at your "point". I don't understand why you were suprised and I'm guessing few people here were suprised. Pop has frequently been outspoken, why is this such a shock to you? Because it had to do with another organizatoin? I'm fairly certain that I can dig up other examples of Pop giving his opinion on the actions of other organizations even when they didn't deal directly with the Spurs.

The only thing people here took from those comments was that the Spurs have no shot at getting Mike Miller.

[ShoogarBear]

:lol

So if Commissioner Stern says so (not that he even bothered to investigate), then it must be so and nobody is allowed to question? You'd make a good North Korean.

[JamStone]

I stated an opinion. I didn't care how you perceived part of my comment that didn't pertain to my main point.

I read your entire post. Your opinion is noted. I am still surprised by Pop's comments.

I'll leave it at that.

[JamStone]

:lol

So if Commissioner Stern says so (not that he even bothered to investigate), then it must be so and nobody is allowed to question? You'd make a good North Korean.


No, but with a lopsided trade like this, I would believe Stern made sure things were done properly because on paper the trade does look lopsided. I'm sure Stern doesn't want more scandal with something like a trade born out of collusion.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not sure he's investigated at all. I mean what is there to investigate really? If Memphis wanted to trade him for a pack of cigs and a Jerry Buss blowjob whats to stop them?

If party A wants to trade with party b even if party c offers a much better offer who's to stop them? You can't make teams do trades they don't want to do.

I'm not too sure there was any collusion. I am pretty sure Chris Wallace is a dumb fuck and I'm pretty sure Pop feels the same way.

[TwinFlowers]

spurs can't control FA moves.

but they could control their own lineup and injured list in 1997.

spurs FO has zero cred on this issue. pop should have kept it zipped. this is like paris hilton calling jamie lynn a slut . . . pots and kettles.