Memphis owner now questions value of Gasol deal

[silverblk mystix]

the ONLY way this would have been CLOSE to being fair is if the grizzlies would have made the finals once or twice in the last 2-3 years---THEN you could claim that it was a fair trade.

[TFloss32]

Just wait until LA gets Chris Bosh for DJ Mbenga and always-injured Bynum....

I'm waiting for this one too (especially if they lose to Boston and the LA bigs get punked like they did in '08)...

[Spurminator]

This trade was bull , and so was the Garnett trade. this league.

[rascal]

Although this deal hasn't panned out, it still has potential.

Critter has probably the biggest upside of any young player you don't know about. He's a big guard with show-stopping handles and the quickness of Monta Ellis. He has talent no doubt but can they hone his skills. He's wild but has already shown flashes of brilliance that would rival Kevin Durant.

Marc Gasol, from what I've seen is a solid young player. He's not quick but he's big, strong with decent skill. Probably a low end NBA starting center right now with potential to be a decent center.

Right now, the deal looks crazy but so did Pau's paycheck for a perennial loser. But in the future, I think it won't look bad at all.

Sure it will.

[rascal]

It's a slippery slope when it comes to this subject because Memphis wasn't doing anything with Gasol, and the NBA needed to make Kobe "Diva" Bryant happy, so this trade is still one of the worst trades ever. Kwame Brown is not equal to anything, but at least this gives Memphis a chance to rebuild.

Memphis has been rebuilding for years with or without that trade. They don't know how to build a winner.

[rascal]

The spurs front office needed to step up with some good moves but they didn't. Instead they watched the Lakers pass them by.

[21_Blessings]

The spurs front office needed to step up with some good moves but they didn't. Instead they watched the Lakers pass them by.

[TheChillFactor]

The spurs front office needed to step up with some good moves but they didn't. Instead they watched the Lakers pass them by.

i was just thinking this over the weekend. The Spurs were on top of the world in the summer of 07 and the Lakers were crap. Then they gave away Scola and the Lakers stole Gasol and LA passed them.

how embarrassing for Pop to call them out. worry about your own damn team and putting the best squad out there, not what other teams are doing. They didn't even get anything back with that damn trade, they just gave Scola away.

those two moves put them behind the Lakers, and they haven't recovered yet.

[Spurminator]

Yeah all the Spurs needed to do was luck into a dumb GM calling them (and only them) offering an All Star for their leftovers!

[Cane]

Yeah all the Spurs needed to do was luck into a dumb GM calling them (and only them) offering an All Star for their leftovers!

Not to mention it was three weeks before the deadline.

[21_Blessings]

Common knowledge Gasol on was the chopping block. That's no excuse.

[rascal]

The spurs need to get someone in the front office that knows how to improve the team with trades. That is one area the spurs have done next to nothing in improving the team.

[Cane]

Common knowledge Gasol on was the chopping block. That's no excuse.

No excuse not to wait until the deadline. Common knowledge you wait out since thats when the real deals come in.

[clubalien]

“We’ve been in the lottery more than anyone in the NBA, and we’ve definitely had the worst record twice as much as anyone else,” Heisley said. “This is sure a fantastic system we have – isn’t it? – where we’ve never gotten the No. 1 pick. Our ticket sales just stopped last year when we didn’t get one of the top picks. What’s the sense in of all this?”

more proof that the lottery is rigged
how else do spurs get david,tim
and clevland gets lebron

[mytespurs]

The spurs front office needed to step up with some good moves but they didn't. Instead they watched the Lakers pass them by.

Easier said than done!

[galvatron3000]

“Maybe our people should’ve shopped (Gasol) more and maybe we would’ve gotten more, done a better deal. Maybe Chris did call every team in the league. I don’t think he did, but maybe he should’ve…”

[admiralsnackbar]

The spurs need to get someone in the front office that knows how to improve the team with trades. That is one area the spurs have done next to nothing in improving the team.

When your team philosophy generally consists of explicitly underpaying the best players and stocking the rest of the roster with cheap high-value role-players, you tie your own hands as far as trade fodder goes. Who are you going to trade Manu for (at his salary) and get back equivalent value? Nobody. And even Mason... he had a much bigger year his first season with the Spurs than his salary suggested he would. Maybe the FO could've bundled him with Bonner for some scraps, but the fact that Mase's stock tanked last year made him useless for trade purposes anyway... can't blame the FO for that.

The only real trade we were able to do recently was get Jefferson, but that was at the cost of gutting our roster and eating a completely over-valued contract. Because of this, he's our only real trade chip going into the season that could realistically net us a better player than the one being shipped out in terms of price/performance. People may want to add Tony to the list of assets, but I still question whether we would get equivalent value in return for his contract.

Then there's the fact that, while trading-up is always exciting, it is often a cosmetic change to cover up a dysfunctional team dynamic. For every Gasol/Garnett trade that nets a le, there are countless exchanges that lead to nothing (Dallas, Cleveland, Portland, etc. etc. etc.) Prior to the Celtics/Lakers reboot era, Spurs, Detroit, and Lakers won by retaining un-glamorous role-players, drafting well, and building on strong team play.

[rascal]

When your team philosophy generally consists of explicitly underpaying the best players and stocking the rest of the roster with cheap high-value role-players, you tie your own hands as far as trade fodder goes. Who are you going to trade Manu for (at his salary) and get back equivalent value? Nobody. And even Mason... he had a much bigger year his first season with the Spurs than his salary suggested he would. Maybe the FO could've bundled him with Bonner for some scraps, but the fact that Mase's stock tanked last year made him useless for trade purposes anyway... can't blame the FO for that.

The only real trade we were able to do recently was get Jefferson, but that was at the cost of gutting our roster and eating a completely over-valued contract. Because of this, he's our only real trade chip going into the season that could realistically net us a better player than the one being shipped out in terms of price/performance. People may want to add Tony to the list of assets, but I still question whether we would get equivalent value in return for his contract.

Then there's the fact that, while trading-up is always exciting, it is often a cosmetic change to cover up a dysfunctional team dynamic. For every Gasol/Garnett trade that nets a le, there are countless exchanges that lead to nothing (Dallas, Cleveland, Portland, etc. etc. etc.) Prior to the Celtics/Lakers reboot era, Spurs, Detroit, and Lakers won by retaining un-glamorous role-players, drafting well, and building on strong team play.

Detroit traded for R Wallace. The Lakers built their teams from free agency and trades. Shaq Horry Artest Bryant were not drafted by the lakers. the spurs get their players through the draft with little from trades and free agency

The spurs had chances at times to get Barkley, Sprewell and R Wallace on the cheap and didn't. Every year teams get good players with trades. Dallas turned their team around without the benefit of getting Robinson and Duncan which are franchise centers. Without those lucky draft picks the spurs would have never even come close to a le.

[rascal]

When your team philosophy generally consists of explicitly underpaying the best players and stocking the rest of the roster with cheap high-value role-players, you tie your own hands as far as trade fodder goes. Who are you going to trade Manu for (at his salary) and get back equivalent value? Nobody. And even Mason... he had a much bigger year his first season with the Spurs than his salary suggested he would. Maybe the FO could've bundled him with Bonner for some scraps, but the fact that Mase's stock tanked last year made him useless for trade purposes anyway... can't blame the FO for that.

The only real trade we were able to do recently was get Jefferson, but that was at the cost of gutting our roster and eating a completely over-valued contract. Because of this, he's our only real trade chip going into the season that could realistically net us a better player than the one being shipped out in terms of price/performance. People may want to add Tony to the list of assets, but I still question whether we would get equivalent value in return for his contract.

Then there's the fact that, while trading-up is always exciting, it is often a cosmetic change to cover up a dysfunctional team dynamic. For every Gasol/Garnett trade that nets a le, there are countless exchanges that lead to nothing (Dallas, Cleveland, Portland, etc. etc. etc.) Prior to the Celtics/Lakers reboot era, Spurs, Detroit, and Lakers won by retaining un-glamorous role-players, drafting well, and building on strong team play.

You said it. The spurs are cheap.

[admiralsnackbar]

You said it. The spurs are cheap.

They have to be, unfortunately.

[admiralsnackbar]

Detroit traded for R Wallace. The Lakers built their teams from free agency and trades. Shaq Horry Artest Bryant were not drafted by the lakers. the spurs get their players through the draft with little from trades and free agency

The spurs had chances at times to get Barkley, Sprewell and R Wallace on the cheap and didn't. Every year teams get good players with trades. Dallas turned their team around without the benefit of getting Robinson and Duncan which are franchise centers. Without those lucky draft picks the spurs would have never even come close to a le.

Could've had Spree when he was a s of his former self. Same with Barks. Could've got Wallace (and you're unhappy we didn't? )

Also, there's a difference between being a highly desirable FA city like LA, and having a great FO, don't you think?

[rascal]

Could've had Spree when he was a s of his former self. Same with Barks. Could've got Wallace (and you're unhappy we didn't? )

Also, there's a difference between being a highly desirable FA city like LA, and having a great FO, don't you think?

No, Sprewell was still good when the spurs could have gotten him. Sprewell before he went to the Knicks was a good player, Spurs had interest then but didn't pull the trigger. he went to the Knicks and helped get them to the finals in 1999. Spree still had some good years even after that and would have helped the spurs in 2000-2002 when the lakers won their 3 peat.


R Wallace was traded 3 times before this last time. The last couple of years he was finished but the time to get him was before that, when detroit got him and he helped then get a le.

Don't understand the logic of your last question. The lakers have a history of success and that is on their front office. The Clippers also play in LA but you don't hear top free agents wanting to go there.

[Mel_13]

Jerry West just said on NBA TV that Grizz would have got more for Gasol if they shopped him around. "I don't know why the did that (deal)."

http://twitter.com/johnschuhmann

The logo has spoken.

[spurs50_]

Did Jerry West wink when he said this?

[Mr Bones]

With the emergence of Marc Gasol the trade doesn't look quite as bad as it once did, but even so, you have to question Memphis for basically making the Lakers a guaranteed powerhouse for at least the next half decade... even with Memphis's nice improvement as a team, they still have little hope of ever getting past the monster they helped create, and have pretty much guaranteed their own exclusion from a western conference le anytime soon.