Reply With Quote
It's not a ty 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.
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.
It's not a ty 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.
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."
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: ty 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 ty 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?
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.
If Gasol doesn't work out then that's one very large price tag. At least Shaq was worth it for a while.
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).
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 ty 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.
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.
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. , 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.
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 ing 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?
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.
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.
Very hard, indeed.
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
Ummmm, 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
I like how the most inciteful, fact filled statement of this entire thread was completely ignored and overlooked.
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.
kudos to harry callahan btw...a breath of fresh air in a sea of in re s.
Alot of that i knew, but there was some stuff in there i had not heard before.
you learn something new every day eh?
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
