A lot of you guys don't understand that whether or not the Lakers won two championships with Pau is IRRELEVANT when evaluating how MEMPHIS made out in this trade. If you operate on the logic that "Lakers 2 Championships = raped the Grizzlies", then that means you're assuming that if the trade never happened, Memphis would instead receive those two championships. Sure you could say that the Lakers were a big winner in this trade, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Grizzlies were a loser in this trade. They received a young, super-talented future top-5 center. I'd say that was a good trade if they felt they were going to lose/let go of Pau in free agency.
But the Grizzlies (by any rational account) did not view Marc Gasol as the linchpin of that trade (they could a couple of future first round picks that were more highly valued to Memphis at the time). And yet the trigger was pulled by the Grizzlies despite other teams--with likely BETTER future draft picks to offer--not having gotten even a chance to bid on Pau's services. To further illustrate the "Marc Gasol is awesome in retrospect" angle of this debate, I'll point you to a recent trade made by the Rockets: Thomas Robinson to the Portland Trailblazers in exchange for the draft rights to Kostas Papanikolaou, the draft rights to Marko Todorovic and two future second round picks. Now, UNLIKE the Pau Gasol trade, the Rockets did NOT get any future first round picks from Portland. As of the date of the trade, most "experts" viewed Papanikolaou as the single best asset received back from Portland. Had the Rockets managed to get a future first round pick, it is likely that such first rounder would be viewed as the best asset in return. While Papanikolaou may very well come over one day and prove to be a very good NBA player, it is clearly not the EXPECTATION of the Rockets (or the NBA community in general) that Papanikolaou will likely become one of the 3-4 best small forwards in the NBA. Nice prospect (like Marc Gasol at the time), but nothing super special. If anything, Papanikolaou may be viewed now as a better prospect than M.Gasol was seen as in early 2008. If Papanikolaou somehow DOES become an elite small forward and perennial All-Star, then the Rockets will have made out like bandits in the Robinson trade. But that wouldn't change that, AT THE TIME, this trade was viewed as a big win (as a low-risk, high-reward move) for Portland, recognizing the Rockets' particular needs for cap space for Dwight Howard. To use an even simpler hypothetical, if Team A trades the #1 pick in the draft to Team B in exchange for the #60 pick, it is pretty clear that Team B won that trade. The fact that the player selected with the 60th pick ends up becoming an All-Star is more a testament to Team A's ability to find and develop talent than it is to its winning that particular trade.
I see what you're saying, and I'm not sure how Memphis viewed Marc Gasol at the time. However, in your above hypothetical, why does the fact that the player at pick #60 happened to be way under-valued mean that Team A automatically won the trade? If pick #60 turns out to be a better and more productive player than pick #1, then I think it's pretty clear cut.. Team A won the trade.
The Marc Gasol hindsight is fine and dandy. But the fact is, if the Grizzlies KNEW that Marc would be so good, they could have just traded for him with much less than Pau Gasol because the Lakers (and everybody else) obviously didn't think that Marc was worth very much.
and you know this how? you have a source perhaps, in LA, that told you that the lakers viewed Marc Gasol as a throwaway player? reports were that the lakers tried to keep marc gasol and pawn off the asian center on the grizzlies. That's what I read. If you know something different please share.
Yeah it's pretty easy to do the math. Marc is a terrific player and the Grizz ended up getting good value but the Goal is winning the championship and LA got two that they would not have without Pau.
Because, at the time of the trade, Team A has no idea whether the player they end up picking at #60 will actually be available. It just WORKS OUT that way. Fortunate circumstances for Team A, to be sure, but separate from the merits of the trade itself. Kind of like if Miami were to trade Lebron James to Houston for Lin and Asik. Any person in his/her right mind would view that as a clear "win" for Houston. However, if Lebron gets a career-ending injury a month later, while Lin and Asik go on to relative prominence, it might WORK OUT better for Miami in the long run. Still, that wouldn't change that the clear winner in the trade itself was Houston.
I'd rather have cap space than Lin and Asik. If you are going to make an analogy, at least make one that MAKES sense. and pau gasol's cap space was worth more than pau gasol himself.
The entire point of the hypothetical is to emphasize the concept of winning a trade. The fact that the trade is unrealistic is not relevant. You DO realize that I'm not seriously proposing that hypothetical trade, right?
Everyone is quick to point out that the Lakers made out like gang busters....but lets look at the lineup the Lakers were playing with. Bynum(played a true 5), Odom(hybrid SF/PF off the bench), Gasol(terrific PF and excellent high post offensive creator), Kobe(the mamba)... The reason for the Laker success was more bc teams just couldnt match up with the size of the Lakers. And yes the Lakers got immediate gratification with titles, but Memphis return was more gradual. In terms of hardware, the Lakers did win out on the trade...but it was more even than people saw at the time, myself included.
The two teams won. Both got what they needed. The lakers got the rings, the grizz got their future center and the trade to get zbo. Of course the lakers won more if u want to say it that way, coz the grizz wherent going to be champs with pau, but this a win-win trade, kinda like the george hill- leonard , where both teams got what they needed.
