Trugoy, this is a 3yr window, that's it. Turiaf gives u leverage against a big contract by scola. They wouldn't have a problem resigning brooks. If brooks continues to develop, lowry will move on anyway. Landry has 2 more yrs , so it doesn't effect him and shane is up in 2 yrs also. In 2 yrs, u let shane walk and brooks gets his salary. Not to mention, u replace haeys ith a cheaper,younger guy.
You can't let scola walk, he complements Yao almost perfectly, if you let scola walk than all these extra pieces are for nothing. Scola is an unrestricted free agent, and he is a free agent in a time when there are MULTIPLE teams with significant cap room. Basically, he has the leverage, not the rockets. Any moves made this summer has to be with a view of resigning scola next summer.
I get what you're saying but the Gasol robbery is a bad example to use. I still contend that this was was a horrible trade that never should have happened. It shifted the balance of power in the Western Conference and took the Lakers from 42-wins and first round fodder to an NBA Finals team. Simply stated: the Lakers would be garbage without Gasol. Making a wise trade in the NBA is two-fold. You have to look at how the move benefits both your side and the end result of the team(s) you are dealing with. I don't know how anybody could reason that trading away your 27-year-old star in his prime to a conference rival for literally nothing more than some minor cap relief that you don't even know how to use properly (i'll get to that in a minute) could possibly be a wise decision. Nothing against Marc Gasol, but is his addition plus a couple near worthless first rounders from a team that's going to be elite for the foreseeable future, really capable of justifying this move? Furthermore, their "attempt" to sign Josh Smith was more like a favor to the Hawks given Smith's restricted status and the lowball contract they offered him. Seriously, you tell me what's better: Josh Smith @ 5 years/$58M -OR- Pau Gasol @ 3 years/$48M A legit 20-10 player that puts up numbers like only a few others can at his position or a tweener 17-7 type player with low basketball IQ? So basically they gave away Gasol in the hopes of becoming a major player in free agency all so they could offer ONE player a cheap contract which Atlanta easily matched without even thinking twice. So tell me where was the secondary offer? Josh Smith definitely wasn't the only free agent out there and this Memphis team is full of holes. Why didn't they go after anybody else? I think it's pretty obvious Michael Heisley's influence had something to do with this. I think it's all a sham and that they have little intention of fielding a competitive team. I get your point about how this "Hey, we'll just pull off a Gasol type steal then we're golden!" attitude is the mindset many around here are carrying. Now, whether or not those type of aspirations are realistic or not remains to be seen. We all heard the Vince Carter whispers. We all heard the Baron Davis whispers. Things are only going to heat up this summer with the Michael Redd's of the world and players like that being openly shopped. The player I want more than anybody is Kevin Martin -- just another example. The point is: the temptation is there and by all accounts these "big name, big contract" type players are catching Morey's eye despite how out of character taking on a relatively high risk or high salary player would be. Ultimately, we all know it comes down to LA's willingness to dab into the luxury tax since you're essentially paying double for every $1 you are over the threshold.
1) grizzlies 2007 - 22 wins, grizzlies 2008 - 22 wins, grizzlies 2009 - 24 wins. Essentially, the win loss record says that pau gasol makes NO difference to memphis's win loss record at all. In fact you could say that Shane Battier had a much bigger role in winning than gasol, grizzlies 2006 -49 wins, and they traded battier that off-season. 2) What concern is it of memphis that the trade shifted the balance of power in the west? Are they suppose to not make a trade that benefits them because some other team might benefit, that logic is asinine. 3) Why would memphis continue to keep gasol when he has no impact on their win loss record, and they are above the cap and can offer no deals to free agents. It makes sense that they trade him and maintain cap flexibility. 4) memphis is one of only 3 teams that are under the cap this summer, the reason is because they traded gasol. 5) because of their salary cap room, they were able to obtain a 2009 first rounder for lowry, a 2013 second round from lakers, 2009 second rounder from houston, first rounder from washington. 6) They are much closer to winning right now then they were last year with gasol and mike miller. In the end that's what matters
I think the problem was that many executives around the league said they offered much better packages or something along those lines.
Better deal for Gasol. I dont know. I just remember reading an article saying that various owners and GMs around the league were shocked by what had happened and said something along the lines of "had we known, we would of offered much much more than what the Lakers offered to get Gasol"
If the rox make the rox trade and get turiaf, scola has no leverage.I mean, what do u have scola worth? 5m? 8m? If someone offered him more than 5m, u let him walk and start landry and turiaf now backs up Yao and Landry.
Heres the article: http://www.mixmakers.net/forums/nba-basketball/176896-ten-teams-had-goods-get-gasol.html Copied from another forum, not the original source.
5m? are you kidding me? who would you rather have, scola or david west or david lee or nene? he is worth 9-10m per year, and he would have tons of leverage, there are at least 10 teams in position to offer him 10m a year.
The deals don't work, Atlanta has Josh Smith and Al Horford at the 4 and 5 spots, why would they trade for Gasol? Chicago won't pay the tax, so they wouldn't offer that package. remember they had plenty of opportunities to put together packages for Amare and KG and even Kobe and they didn't do it, so I don't think they are going to trade for Gasol. Golden state deal doesn't work because you have 3 players in a qualifying offer year and they would've refused the deal. What's more gasol doesn't fit into Don Nelson's offense, there's no way Nelson trades for gasol. Why would the clippers trade brand for gasol when at the time they were building their core around brand? Miami was going to trade shaq no matter what, and they were rebuilding, you don't give away draft picks when you are rebuilding, so no way miami trades for gasol.
You give Grizzlies management too much credit. At least we can agree on one thing: the Gasol trade definitely was financially motivated. The difference is you obviously believe the Grizzlies made this move as part of a greater strategy to achieve flexibility and add pieces down the line, while I feel the Gasol trade was a product of a penny-pinching owner pressuring his GM into making a trade that makes his franchise look more attractive to the buyer's market with little interest in fielding a winning or competitive team. And yes, you absolutely should consider the cause/effect element of trading with other NBA teams. There is nothing asinine at all about having reservations about potentially greatly bolstering a conference rival. Especially in a case like this where the Grizzlies KNOW they got the short end of the stick. No, they won't admit that but the results are pretty overwhelming. All they are right now is "that team in Memphis, for now, that has little chance of being competitive that just gave away their best player to the effen Lakers. Any takers?". Plus, it's funny how quickly people forget that a Gasol-led Grizzlies team was 45-50 wins a season and making the playoffs during a three year span before everything fell completely apart. Were they going to win with Gasol this year? No, they weren't so I agree with the whole "We can lose with ya, we can lose without ya" element. The funny part is they would have still been pitiful even with Josh Smith -- that much, I can guarantee (I follow the Hawks closely, there's no stabilizing force present in Memphis like there is in Atlanta to keep a bonehead like him in line) so if they "lucked out" and actually got Josh Smith, it still would have been a borderline waste considering the likely minimal improvement he would have provided. Mind you, this is all before they traded away their best PG for, you guessed it, another first rounder so they can repeat this whole cycle over again. It's tedious. Tedious and uninteresting. Memphis' biggest accomplishment this season was signing then playing Darius Miles thus screwing Portland out of a ton of cap space. Otherwise it's like they don't even have a team there.
1) As an NBA owner, you have to spend money, every owner spends money, the crux comes down to how you spend your money, and memphis determined that pau gasol was not a good use of their money and salary cap, and I agree with them. 2) I disagree about memphis owner not being interested in winning, look at their 3 seasons of 50 wins and playoffs, during that time they spent plenty of money on the team, in fact they took a risk in trading rudy gay for shane battier because they wanted to get over the hump and get into the second round. unfortunately they did not realise how important shane battier was to them and their franchise collapsed. 3) I disagree, I think memphis is one of the best positioned teams in the league right now, they have lots of young talent, Mayo, conley, gay, gasol and soon rubio on cheap rookie contracts, they have tons of cap space, and they have no bad contracts. If any superstars come on the market, they are probably the team to beat when it comes down to putting together a good trade package. 4) The thing is I can't blame them for wanting to save salary, they have had three 20 win seasons in a row, it makes sense to save salary when you are not winning, at least it give you flexibility and options, unlike other losing teams that are capped out and have no options.
No one in their right mind will offer scola 9m. I doubt if he gets 7m which is a stretch. Of those guys, I would take all 3 over scola. He's a good rebounder and plays hard, but is a terrible defender and needs someone to get doubles to be effective. That's why he strjuggles when teams don't double or man and a half Yao. Not only that, he will be 30 and not much growth in his favor.
He has a standing offer of 3 years and $30mil from Pananthanaikos, so he is going to europe if he can't get that contract in the NBA. I totally disagree that is a terrible defender, he is a bad defender against low post power players, he is an excellent team defender, especially on the pick and roll, his hedges on the pick and roll are amongst the best in the NBA. His weakness against power players is covered by Hayes and Yao. I disagree about his offense, he has enough moves to get his shot off against almost anyone in the NBA, if the team ran more plays for him, he would be much better offensively, and I would take him over all 3 of those people I mentioned. Maybe I will do a thread on scola.
I think I am interested in Murphy, Dunleavy, and Brandon Rush for McGrady. Murphy is your backup 5 with shooting range. We're stuck with that contract for another 2 years. But I think he could be highly productive in a backup role. Dunleavy fits Adelman's system perfectly. And Brandon Rush is going to be a playa. That would give us two very solid units starting with: Brooks Artest Dunleavy Yao Scola with Lowry Battier Rush Murphy Landry coming off the bench with Hayes and Barry still hanging around for special moments. Talk about being able to match up against other teams. I think it would really be something. A good mix of very good defenders and very good shooters and very good playmakers and all of them move without the basketball. If Indiana would throw in Rush with the other two bad contracts......would you do it?
Mike Dunleavy might never play basketball again, he had knee surgery and will not play until 2010 at the earliest.
