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

What article are you talking about? The one written by the commercial appeal? Or the one done by Woj? Your puff piece was released on April 11 2008, while the Woj article was released a couple of months later on June 8, 2008. Every trade done by GMs usually has a PR release to go with it, the Chron released one talking about how Thabeet's potential could pay off to the Rockets. Woj's articles usually have more weight than PR articles like these.

The fact that the owner was now questioning whether they got the short end of the stick (duh!!) a few months after the Commercial appeal article shows that while they indeed thought Marc would be a decent player, they didn't really get as much as they could have for Pau. If you think about it logically, they really should have asked for Bynum to go along with Gasol.

 

The article you posted had Micheal Heisely questioning the deal. Micheal Heisley is not the person who made the deal. He only signed off on it.

Find me an article that the actual person who made the deal Chris Wallace questioning the value of it.

You aren't going to find one because Chris Wallace never questioned what he got.

Heisley is an emotional guy and he heard all of the talk about who made the deal was and he gave an emotional answer. He even says that he doesn't even know if we called all of the teams. He wasn't apart of the process of the deal at all except in the capacity of signing off of it.

 

How Bad the deal was from the media

 

Lol opportunity cost? You assume they'd have the same team as a few years ago?

It's not a binary trade system. It's not like either they give Gasol to LA or they can never trade him.

and as Pieman2005 says below you, just because their picks turned out for success this season doesn't mean the original trade wasn't wack.

Logic. The trade is evaluated on its merits. If the trade involved Marc or the current roster then yes you count those assets. If other transactions happened down the line (even years down the line) lol @ that article lmfao.

 

LOL!!!!!

OF COURSE YOU JUDGE TRADES WITH HINDSIGHT!!!!

Again: the only question we need to ask in this debate: Would Memphis do the same trade again?

If the answer is yes, your argument fails.

Spoiler

your argument fails

 

One other thing about the Hasheem Thabeet debacle that I had forgot.

Do any of you guys remember those stories coming out about how Chris Wallace had no power and Heisley was running the show. Well, all of that came to a head with Hasheem Thabeet.

Chris Wallace never wanted Hasheem, but was directed to take him, by Heisley. It has been suggested privately that his choice had always been Tyreke Evans.

And roslolian's article he found was another great example of this. Basically, in that article, Heisley undercut his entire management team through the papers. Who does that? I'll tell you who does. Micheal E. Heisley does.

If you want to criticize our organization for anything, this is where you should start. Because for a long time the owner and the management staff were not on the same page.

But it worked out.

 

How do you expect to judge trades properly then if you always include information GMs would have no way of knowing at the time?

Based on your 20/20 argument, the Lakers actually got the short end of the stick on that trade, they should have dangled Bynum instead of then unknown Marc Gasol. Not only that, they were so stupid they didn't know Kobe would permanently injure his pinky in a couple of years, they should have traded him to the Thunder for then rookie Kevin Durant and the draft rights to Westbrook the following year.Marc Gasol, Pau Gasol, Kevin Durant and West Brook, man the Lakers sure are dumb for letting such an opportunity pass them by

 

Honestly I get what you're trying to say, if you're evaluating it based on what happened the Pau Gasol trade did indeed work out in the long run, I'm sure knowing what they know now a lot of people would prefer Marc Gasol to Pau Gasol straight up simply because of his youth, less wear and tear, and the fact that he's a big bruising center instead of yet another power forward like his big bro.

But like what another poster said earlier, if you traded an allstar for a low first rounder, then the trade is still a losing trade even if the low first rounder turned out to be Lebron James and the all star was actually Juwon Howard. The problem here is you lost out on the value of the trade-an allstar should be worth more than just 1 low first rounder.

What should have happened is the Lakers should have given more than just Marc Gasol in the trade, maybe they should have included Odom and/or Bynum in the deal as well, and there's no way Memphis had to give a 2nd rounder in the deal. Even if Wallace knew Marc Gasol would be so good, the Lakers didn't know that, otherwise they wouldn't have given him up. So, he should have asked for more compensation, at the very least he should have contacted other teams and started a bidding war like what happened in Minny and in Denver when KG or Melo got traded. Instead, he had a hush-hush deal with the Lakers that caught most of the teams in the league unawares.

 

I regret jumping in this fray after arguing this 3 years ago. it is not the grizzlies job to worry about the rest of the league. they made a trade good for them. all they wanted was cap space. they were bleeding money in those years, they were second to last in attendance, they were going no where with gasol, the lakers had an expiring contract.

the only reason this is on everyone's minds is laker hatred. i hate the lakers, but i won't let that into me deluding myself on why that trade was made.

 

If the grizzlies would have gotten Bynum, they would not have gotten the cap space they desperately wanted.

Even though, as I said before, that the cap space had intrinsic value, which it did, the grizzlies needed to cut the overhead because we were losing so much money at the time.

This deal was also on some level a salary dump. But a salary dump with a purpose. Heisley needed flexibility. You can't discount the fact that with an empty stadium and a huge contract like pau's the importance of the cap relief that we got while our younger players were developing.

 

quoted for truth. You beat me to it about the cap relief and bleeding money part.

 

Come on, man.. the Grizzlies didn't do that deal thinking they'd become a contender the following year. They did that deal to rebuild into a team that can contend -- and they have done just that.

Based on my 20/20 argument, the Lakers got a great deal as well -- two championships out of that trade.

Basically, you guys are agreeing that the results of that trade turned out great for Memphis, but are still trying to return to your 2007 (or whenever it was) evaluation of the deal. That's silly. If Morey trades Martin like I suggested, I don't expect the Rockets to be a contender next year. You would judge a trade like that in three years, after the Rockets have fully rebuilt. Same concept.

Win-win for both sides.

 

The only justification for that trade from Memphis' perspective was Brown's expiring contract. I agree that it was a salary dump and preparation for tanking. Now people resurrect the debate because Marc Gasol has unexpectedly become a good center, as if Wallace is a genius while ignoring his track records of squandering talent after talent. People are confusing blind luck with smart.

 

Just curious, in your estimation, why did the grizzlies even ask for Marc Gasol in a deal. He was a second round pick, buried overseas. It seems kinda strange that they would pull him out of thin air.

Or are you saying that the lakers dictated that part of the deal and basically told the grizzlies this is who they can have? Either way, judging by how it turned out, the lakers were pretty stupid for demanding that the grizzlies take him.

So which is it: Did the lakers demand that they grizzlies accept Marc or did the grizzlies ask for him. And if the grizzlies asked for him, why would they have asked for a 2 round pick buried overseas that wasn't even playing in the nba at the time?

 

The #1 problem with your argument is that you are assuming that your ignorance is universal to everyone else. When the trade was made Chris Wallace was touting Gasol as the equivalent of a top 10 draft pick.

I know it is hard for you to believe but Wallace actually got on a plane and scouted Marc Gasol prior to making this trade.

 

Huh? A second round pick is always a thrown-in sweetener in a trade involving a franchise player. What else could it be? That's what the Lakers had that they were willing to give up.

 

If he really thought Gasol was a top 10 pick, why didn't Wallace pick Gasol with his own lottery pick then?

Did Wallace also tout Thabeet as a #1 pick? Better yet, did Wallace tout Lowry as a futue top 10 PG?

 

Wallace didn't pick Thabeet. Heisley did. Why aren't you following along. LOL. I already posted this and it was well-documented be chad fraud and the rest of the media that Thabeet was Heisley's baby, not wallaces.

 

So, in your estimation, neither the lakers or the grizzlies knew anything about Marc at the time of the deal.

 

Actually I misread what you said.

Why didn't wallace pick Gasol with a top 10 pick? It was because gasol had made a dramatic leap forward the year after he was drafted.

At the actual time he was drafted, he wasn't nearly as good as he had become just a year later. By the time of the pau deal though Marc was getting plenty of buzz in europe.