Can we finally put to rest that the Gasol/Brown trade was 1 sided

The grizzlies goal going into that draft was to improve their defense. If you remember the grizzlies took the top 3 defensive players that year, Thabeet, Demarre Carroll and Sam Young.

The reason that they when this route was because we were losing leads in the 4th quarters of games consistently because we could not stop the pick n roll.

Thabeet was neither a mulligan for gasol or an admission of failure for any previous trades. We were quite happy with gasol, but we needed to figure out how to stop people, that was the real reason we drafted those three players.

But icehouse can continue to spin it the way he likes, i suppose.

 

I'm not counting who the Grizz drafted. I am guaging the value of the pick. Someone can trade you a 2nd rounder which you use to draft Rodman. You made a great pick but that doesn't mean that draft slot was very valuable. Near 2nd round picks aren't valuable.

And yes his example has nothing to do with the specific trade. He was making a point as to why you have to look at the value of the pick as opposed to how the pick was used. We blew the #1 pick when we drafted Carr, but that doesn't mean the pick wasn't valuable.

 

The trade was not fair then and it's not fair now. Why can't you people just drop it and move on? That doesn't mean that the Grizzlies have to remain a mediocre team for the trade to have been unfair. You HAVE to judge the trade based on the value of what the Grizzlies received then, not what they ended up with three years later. It's that simple.

Sometimes teams get lucky and things work out. There are countless examples of this. John Stockton was pick #16. Does that mean every team should trade their established players for late picks? Does that mean that if the Jazz obtained that #16 pick (which, again, is a #16 pick) by trading away a young and established all-star that it was fair? No. It worked out well for the Jazz, but the fact remains that the initial trade was high-way robbery. If we pull up articles, threads, and comments about this trade when it initially went down, we'd see that thousands of people knew what they Lakers just did to the Grizzlies.

Once again, the Grizzlies' owner publicly came out and admitted that they were too hasty in trading Pau Gasol and that they "probably" would have been able to get more.

 

The Aaron Brooks trade. As Dragon Girl knows, I was not a big fan of the trade, but I said I would reserve judgment until I saw who the draft pick we got back for it was. You absolutely have to count WHO they draft with the picks they receive.

If we traded the #25th pick for the #28th pick and #33rd (or whatever it was) -- by your outlook that's a pretty good deal for the Rockets. But then you realize we traded Batum for Donte Greene and Dorsey and it's a pretty lopsided deal in the other side's favor.

I don't think you can really judge a trade until you view all of the player's involved and not just the # of the pick. The #14th pick in 2010 is a better player than the #9th pick in 2003 (random example) -- draft positioning isn't everything, it's about who you get at that slot.

I can understand people believing the Grizzlies could have done better -- but really, look at what they got in return. They got a top five center that everyone on this board would salivate for; cleared enough cap space to sign a PF who is arguably the best in the NBA now; and drafted two players who play big roles in their rotation.

In hindsight, that's a great deal for the Grizzlies. Maybe they lucked into it.. hell, they probably did.. but in the end, they still made a good deal, accident or not. I don't think you can really say this trade should've been rescinded like people (including me) were saying at the time.

 

Your gauging is flawed. Because you aren't accounting intrinsic value in the valuation.

Any young player has an intrinsic value as well as an actual value at the time of a deal.

Your point is continually to measure Pau Gasol's actual worth (which had very little intrinsic value but a lot of known value) against a young player marc gasol (who had very little known value but tremendous intrinsic value): the intrinsic values were: young 7 footer, most improved european player at the time.

You are saying Pau's actual value was greater than Marc's actual value. That's absolutely true. I agree 100 percent. But Marc's intrinsic value (and here is where you have to listen) was far greater than his actual value. He had upside. So the grizzlies dealt for him knowing that he had that upside and would improve.

They also got a ton of cap space. Once again, how can you measure cap space? Cap space alone has no actual value. But what it does have is intrinsic value. You get the point? They are going to be able to use that cap space to sign a player. And the 17 to 18 million of cap space I would submit had a huge amount of intrinsic value at the time.

The other two assets the grizzlies got, the two number 1s, I'll grant you had marginal intrinsic value: a lakers first round pick isn't worth that much both actual and intrinsically.

I hope this clears things up for good.

 

As far as you are concerned, things were cleared up from me when I read your posts from the other board. Enough said.

 

I figured you'd say something like that, because you can't argue against the post.

 

It's irrelevant to you only because you don't understand the faulty logic exposed by the extreme hypothetical example.

Okay, let me use the trade at hand. They traded away their franchise player for a notorious bust in Brown, a second round pick in Marc, and two late first round picks.

The fact that Marc turns out great, and the two late first round picks turn out okay does not make the original value of those pieces AT THE TIME OF THE TRADE higher. The fact still is, they traded their best player for:

1. a notorious bust
2. two late first rounders
3. a second rounder

 

No, maybe we should give credit to the Grizz for seeing the potential in Marc Gasol that others didn't see. Reminded me of the Scola trade. By your logic, Spurs made a good trade with Scola because they only gave up a second pick for another second round pick and V-Span.

 

I'll go with option B which is you have been shown to be have silly points and flip-flop, like others on your own board have stated, so it's not worth the effort. Especially when your point has been debunked many times over. I had a feeling th it was pointless going back-n-forth with you and looking at the other board just confirmed that.

 

Once again: not addressing the post. Attacking the credibility of the poster instead. Lawyering 101?

 

+1

Easy-- it was irrelevant because it was 100% unrealistic. Your view of the trade is too narrow and simplistic -- ie, refusing to look at the outcome of the trade several years later, labeling players as "2nd rounders" instead of looking at their actual value/contribution. Memphis didn't accept that trade because they thought they would be contending the following year; they did it to rebuild their franchise. Three years later, they've got a talented team that could push them to the WCF. Good trade, the end.

 

And I would go with the "Grizz saw the potential" theory if they didn't draft Thabeet. Teams that see potential in young players don't use top assets on other young players to take their spot.

Let's see if the Clippers or Jazz draft a PF with their lotto picks (if the Clippers still have theirs). Let's see if the Wizards use their lotto pick on a PG. Let's see if the Warriors draft a PG with their lotto pick. Let's see if the Kings draft dudes that play the same positions as Cousins or Evans with their lotto pick. Let's see if the T-Wolves draft another PF with their lotto pick. Let's see if the Pistons draft another C with their lotto pick. Let's see if the Bucks draft dudes that play the same spots as Jennings or Bogut with their lotto pick. This is assuming these teams get say, a top 3 or 5 pick. I think it's fair to say you don't expect to land a stud outside of the top 5.

 

Common sense 101. Exposing posters 101.

 

That's doubtful considering the number of poor decisions the Grizzlies have made. They made a mistake with Lowry. They made a mistake with Thabeet. You could even argue that the Randolph acquisition was a stupid decision (given his history) that they lucked out on.

The Spurs unloaded Jackie Butler's contract. Also, by then, didn't they already have the rights to Splitter?

 

Scola was completely different. Scola was picked at the time when only a few teams had extensively used the Spurs' strategy of picking foreign players in the second round and stashing them for a while in Euroleague. Scola and other players were picked late not because they were thought to be not good enough but because they were not available at the time of the draft. When the Spurs traded Scola to Houston, he was widely known as one of the top players outside of the NBA. Not so with Marc Gasol.

Marc Gasol was picked in a totally different era when every team scouts in Europe. High potential Euros don't get left to the second round like the Scolas and the Ginobilis.

You would have a point ONLY IF you could prove that the Grizzlies KNEW at the time of the trade that Marc would be this good.

Dragongirl has already pointed why that is extremely doubtful given the track records of Memphis' talent evaluation. The Thabeet pick is just too obvious a counterargument for your view.

 

2008 Marc Gasol Article: Before he had come to the grizzlies.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/apr/11/marc-gasols-potential-has-griz-eager/

 

There's not much point in continuing the back and forth, we're not going to see eye-to-eye.

In the end, three years later, there's only one question to ask: Would Memphis do the same trade again? I think the answer is unequivocally yes, which leads me to believe it turned out to be a good trade for them.

 

And this is exactly why you'll never understand why the Grizz trade is a bad move. If Memphis wants to do the trade, they're already looking at it with hindsight, something you don't have at the time you do the trade.

Some facts that have been compiled in this thread:
1) Z-bo was obtained in order for the Grizzlies to meet the minimum salary requirement. He had nothing to do with Pau Gasol, theoretically speaking they could have afforded both Pau and Z-bo on the team.
2) Grizzlies gave up Pau and a 2nd rounder for Marc Gasol, Crittenton, Aaron Mckie and two low first round picks. Marc became one of the better big men in the league (still inferior to Pau), Crittenton and Mckie are out of the league, and the 2nd rounder Memphis gave is value-wise better than the Laker's low first rounder. I don't know why somehow this garbage package is better than what other franchises received for their star but whatever
3) Despite what What and LTF continue insisting, the Grizzlies had no idea what they were doing. Sure they saw some value in Gasol (see that nice fluff piece what brought up), but Wallace had already publicly admitted he did the trade because of Kwame Brown had the largest expiring contract on the market, Gasol and the rest were just sweeteners thrown in the pot. Its not like Wallace had some unshakeable vision that Gasol would become one of the premier big men in the league:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-heisleygasol060308

 

Did you read the article. It is pretty self explanatory. All you got to do is read it. It was written pre-gasol in the nba.

Please read it and tell me what you get out of it. I'd love to know.