Reply With Quote
Interesting article. Is it true, about Bird blaming the Spurs?
http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/b...n.37cc151.html
Buck Harvey: For Spurs, what goes around went through Memphis
Web Posted: 02/09/2008 11:23 PM CST
Buck Harvey
Express-News Staff Writer
BOSTON — 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.
advertisement
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 le, Larry Bird went to the postgame podium with his own passive-aggressive humor.
Bird blamed the Spurs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]
Interesting article. Is it true, about Bird blaming the Spurs?
Yeah, how dare those GMs expose his cronyism. Damn them.
The fact that West has had to deny persistent rumors of his involvement in this deal speaks volumes. Even Laker Fan doesn't believe Kupchak (aka Cupcake) was capable of this deal.
Actually, Laker Fan could care less how this deal got done even though it seems blatantly crooked. They're just happy that they're in contention after four straight seasons in the toilet. I have to admit, Laker Fan looked good in the toilet. *sigh*.
Last edited by TwoHandJam; 02-10-2008 at 09:23 AM.
Curiously, that resume entry (3 les in 5 years) sounds familiar.
West when on to say "If I had brokered the transaction for Gasol to the Lakers for peanuts I would certainly would confess to doing so to the media and all."
Last edited by Fabbs; 02-10-2008 at 10:46 AM.
Oh really Harvey?! Do explain in detail how the Spurs "got a lot for him".
Tell us again who those players were, who the draft picks ended up being, and the vast amount of cash involved.
And the inference that it was #1 David Robinson is dead wrong.
Also what McHale recieved for KG far outweighs what LA gave for Gasol.
Also McHale didn't sneak one offer under the table. He listened to stuff from all kinds of teams 1st, including Phxs offer(s). Memphis on the other hand turned down much better offers and then snuck this one thru.
The Spurs got Frank Brickowski and Petur Gudmundsson in that deal. Brickowski did play a significant role for the Spurs between 1987 and 1990 and then was traded to Milwaukee to acquire Paul Pressey in August of 1990. Gudmundsson did very little and was waived in the middle of the 88-89 season.
They got a first round pick in 1987 (Cadillac Anderson) and a second round pick in 1990 (Sean Higgins). Anderson, you could say, proved to be a useful acquisition if only because he was packaged with Alvin Robertson to get Terry mings, who made the Spurs legitimate in 89-90. Sean Higgins was a bit like Gudmundsson -- did little in his rookie season and was waived early in the 91-92 season.
So essentially it did nothing to propel Spurs towards a le, which was supposed to be the plan when they were so down yet held Michael Thompson. Find it hard to believe that is all they got offered for Thompson, when they gave the LA Flamers exactly what they needed in a PF/SF who could score some. Not as stanky as this Gasol joke trade, but sure seems like someone within the Spurs at that time wore Laker underwear.
Despite my Spurs homerism, I can't go with Pop on this one.
He's dead wrong to criticize the Grizz because IT AINT HIS BIZNESS! It's totally uncommon for him to speak out on another team's affairs. Why would he care? With Splitter coming next season, he certainly couldn't have been interested in Gasol.
He certainly shouldn't be worrying about The Fakers. Instead, he should be more concerned with how to improve his own roster with a player who isn't 34 years old or older. Had he not opened his big mouth, perhaps he had a chance to steal either Mike Miller or Hakim Warrick in the Memphis fire sale.
Sage advice for Pop: Shut up and upgrade your aging roster.
sounds like bitter grapes to me.
what are these better trades MEM could have gotten? i hear lots of talk but not much in the way of facts.
deal has to include immediate cap relief, players on their rookie K's, and picks. MEM is set at 1 and 3, have at least a capable 4 in warrick. so they need ideally a young 2, a young 5, and even with warrick you can always use another 4.
so those are the parameters: cap relief, rookie K's, an multiple picks. no swing players needed.
What did LA give? Over $11M in immediate relief, a very good young 1G/2G in javaris, and spanish league mvp 5 marc gasol. two picks, '08 and '10 with minimal protection.
let's see the better deals, and please make them realistic (ie, no CHI since they were not going to pay tax, no MIA because they were not going to give up this year's pick, no long term salary going back to MEM).
pony up with some scenarios.
MIN got one decent player for KG, and that's if you just look at offense and not defense. al jefferson still doesn't defend at all.
he's a solid player though, no doubt.
i think the problem with the MIN/BOS deal is what mchale turned down . . . a lot of people would say bynum, lamar, farmar, and the 17th pick (javaris critt) was a far better package than what he ultimately got.
Just saying, that was a much better package than what the Celts offered. Even I can admit that. Mchale wouldnt deal with a team that was a rival and in the west but he would pull the deal for his former team.
Dude, chill out, I think what Buck meant was that they "got a lot for him" because their team got tier, giving them a better opportunity to grab the number 1 pick in the draft.
ive never heard Pop complain about other teams or dealings....does the media not realize that it was probably said tongue and cheek?.....just like every other comment pop makes.
seems to me they SI wanted a lil drama and spun it the way they wanted
I thought the whole point of this trade for Memphis was to get a bunch of expiring contracts, period. They could have traded for seven small forwards and it wouldn't have mattered as long as their contracts came off the books in a year or two and made the team easier to sell.
So your parameters are too restrictive. All Memphis needed to get "value" for Gasol was cap relief. That doesn't have to be in the form of rookie contracts, and it doesn't have to be centers and power forwards.
And calling Javaris "very good" is kinda a stretch, isn't it? If he's so good, how come he had 21 DNP-CDs with the Lakers this year? He has some potential, that's all. Neither he nor Marc Gasol are sure things like Pau is.
so cal.....lame post....whats even more lame is u trying to find a pic that looks like pop
Actually, back then, all a team had to do was not make the playoffs -- the chances of getting the #1 overall pick were equal for all teams in the lottery because each team had one envelope in the hopper and that envelope could have been drawn at any point. By 1987, the only difference that a bad record made was an assurance that if you didn't get a top 3 pick, you'd at least have a fairly low pick. In 1987, the rules changed so that the lottery determined only the top 3 teams and everyone else was slotted in order of record. But everyone had the same chance to end up in the top 3.
Um, with Pop blasting the Grizzlies front office, I guess we're definitely not getting Mike Miller now.
Did we ever have a legitimate shot at getting Mike Miller in the first place?
Question.
Not if he would help us in a series with the Lakers.
Ask ChumpDumper.
Methinks "no."
no, MEM wanted more than just ending K for pau. they wanted the same things other teams want when they shed a player like gasol . . . relief, prospects on rookie payscale, and picks. so i don't think the terms are too restrictive. they've got conely and rudy, so sure, they'd take a 1 or a 3 back but you can't say they have a need at either of those spots. it would likely be a player they'd have to deal away later though.
javaris can play, no doubt. both ways. he got a lot of DNP's in LA because of phil's reluctance to play rooks and being behind fish and farmar on the depth chart. MEM has already said they'll use him as a 2G, something LA didn't do.
he was a steal at that part of the draft as was gasol in the 2nd. MEM wanted critt, LA wanted to keep him. he can play.
nothing is for certain with those two they're not locks by any stretch, but they're not junk.
MEM did ok here when you look at other 'realistic' scenarios.
i don't see any team willing to take on cardinal's K to get pau. if so, that may have been a better deal. i don't see any way MEM could have turned pau into a top 8 pick this year. if so, maybe that would have been a better deal so long as they got out of half his K or so.
i'm hoping some of you have deals in mind i'm not thinking of.
Yeah, I guess the problem I have with the Grizz-Lakers conspiracy theory is the same problem I have with most conspiracy theories, and that's motive. What motive would the Grizzlies have for handing the Lakers a championship? I guess the only thing I can think of is that West's hand-picked successor Chris Wallace is extremely loyal to West, who in turn is extremely loyal to the Lakers organization, and the call came down from Buss that they wanted Gasol and didn't want to trade anything except horribly ty roster filler.Not if he would help us in a series with the Lakers.
But doesn't it seem to be a stretch that Chris Wallace (who had a clear motivation to tank and get rid of the biggest contract on the team) would look to the Lakers--and no one else--to do a deal that could have been done with plenty of other teams, simply because his immediate successor told him to?
Define legitimate.
Memphis is obviously in salary cutting mode but do the Spurs have the best deal to offer? Heisley is probably not breathing down Wallace's neck as much after the Gasol deal, so he can actually take his time dealing Miller.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
