Grizzlies sign F Miles to second 10-day contract

kinda sad they picked a pg in the last 3 drafts.

 

Clearly, I don't agree.

I can't prove my contention. Neither can you prove yours.

I contend that Pau had much more trade value than Camby and Randolph, and even more value than what Memphis got.

My support is all the comments and analysis above, and that wide, deep and universal dissing of the Memphis trade, which continues to this day. Camby trade coverage was mixed. A few media complained about Denver "dumping" Camby, but those were stories which rarely explained the lux tax problem, nor did they carefully analyize team needs, Camby's overhyped game and the return of Nene. The proof Camby's overhyped game is in the win total pudding. The media coverage of the Randolph trade was also very mixed, pro and con.

What the heck are you talking about.

Number one - a large portion of trade deadline deals, happen AT the deadline. That is for a good reason. Teams moving a valuable asset (That would be Pau, not Kwame, Javaris, low picks) are in the driver seat, and wait to pressure for the best possible deal. Unless you are Chris Wallace and don't even know you are in the driver seat - or are working under different marching orders.

Number two - You have no proof at all there were only two interested teams. We as fans don't hear about the vast majority of legit, but preliminary trade discussions. You and I have no idea what was floating out there. We do know that there were complaints that more would have been offerred if Pau had been handled "normally", ie, marketed hard, auctioned off at the deadline. That's why they call it the trade DEADLINE.

And you keep harping on the "value" of what Memphis. I agree the stuff had value. Not total garbage. Some value. But NOT MUCH. And in the NBA you just can't add up a bunch of low value stuff to equal high value. It doesn't work that way.

To stretch the point. Say you have LeBron and he is worth 10 - Maximum value. A team offers you 10 players/picks/contracts each worth 4. The total sum = 40. Four times better, right? Guess what - no GM in the NBA takes that offer. No matter how many low value pieces you put together you cannot equal the value of a Prime All-Star caliber player who knows how to play team ball. Again, that would be Pau.

I never said Memphis had to choose between rejecting the LA deal and losing Pau for nothing. I know he had to go soon. Memphis put themselves in that position by having previouly rejected better deals and running low on a self-imposed time limit. But, time hadn't run out, most deals pop up at the last moment, and Wallace had not (according to reports) turned over every single stone.

I think a clue Wallace didn't work his ass off is that it wasn't a three team deal. If he had worked the phones like a maniac, he should have/could have worked out a better deal by including another team.

Cap space is a total JOKE for crap franchises. Wait til you see what Memphis does with their cap space. Nuff said.

Your recollection about Pau's contract is off. This may be coloring your perception of the deal. Pau was under contract for 3 1/2 more years when he was traded.

 

While that may be correct... why are you bitching about Memphis being unethical, when you want to the Blazers to sign a guy that they have no use for and basically hold him captive?

 

If Memphis only signed Miles to play him the minimum number of games (and I'll admit that all we have is rumor and conjecture to back that up at this point) for the sole purpose of screwing Portland out of cap space and have no plans of keeping him now that he's served that purpose, then they're not exactly the kings of the ethics department. Let's assume that the Blazers have pretty good reason to believe that's the case, then is it unethical for them to use the CBA's waiver provisions to try to protect themselves from another team that is using other CBA provisions simply to screw the Blazers?

 

I can't prove my contention, no. Your support is the after-the-fact dissing of the deal, which is reasonable. My support is the at-the-time weak bidding. The market establishes value, and Gasol was not drawing very impressive bids.

I just said, in my last post, that it wasn't "proof." You said that there was "zero evidence." That isn't true...the fact that only two teams were reported as interested (which is substantiated by the fact that no other GM after the fact mentioned having made any offer...in the bitch-fest following the deal, any GM who had actually made an offer would likely have mentioned it) is certainly evidence. Not proof.

I realize that, but all quality-for-quantity deals work that way. The team dealing the one quality player rarely gets back equal value. When the Lakers dealt Shaq, they certainly didn't get equal value back in anyone's eyes. You make the deal because you've decided you're not going to get any further with your star and you want a group of lesser players. The theory is that the combination of lesser players will equal the one excellent player, but that almost never is true.

Fair enough. Being wrong on that fact does change my perception of the deal. There was still pressure on him since pressing on with an unhappy star is never a good situation, but less than I thought. While I still don't think that the deal was a historically bad one or deserving of all the angst, I now think it was far too hasty and probably not sufficient considering he could have spent more time waiting.

 

To clarify a bit on this point, I agree that rarely can you get equal value when trying to trade a star, and you have to make several pieces or elements put together, often with an element of future value. "I trade you my now player, for your future (I hope) player."

I am not claiming they should (or could) have traded Gasol for Dirk or another star. I think they took a player who had a value in the league of an 8 out of 10 and traded him for a couple of 2's a 3 and a 4. I think a deal more in the ballpark is a trade of an 8 for a 6 and a couple of 3's.

As for the Shaq deal, Lamar Odom and Caron Butler are far below Shaq in impact, but they were 7's to Shaq's 10. Much closer imo to the leftovers Memphis got for a prime, still young Pau.

 

I don't like loosing, but when the team isn't going anywhere, I stop caring about winning and I rather loose anf get a better draft pick.

Gay is still better the Battier and it's not even close.

 

Yet more evidence of the curse...

The Grizz lost to the Knicks tonight by 20.

So, that's 8 in a row and a fired coach. Congratulations to Chris Wallace. Your franchise is now the laughing stock of the entire NBA.

BNM

 

lol im betting against memphis everytime now. gonna make some $$$

 

PapaG is angry with Memphis being 'unethical' in signing Miles to whack Portland's cap space. Is that unethical? Maybe. But, he also supports claiming a player off waivers, denying him any playing time or oppurtunity, essentially holding him captive on the bench (hell probably not even letting him come to the arena). Is that unethical? Maybe.



I'm just sayin...

 

i wouldn't even say it would be unethical for memphis to sign miles just to wreck the blazers cap space. that's a smart business move by memphis. just like i have no problem with the "threatening" email the blazers sent out and would have no problem if they actually followed through with the threat had memphis not actually given miles meaningful minutes.

 

I agree with that, Portland and Memphis are competing for free agents this summer. Memphis played completely by the rules, and the Blazers are bitter about it.



I was just saying, PapaG thinks its unethical for the Grizzlies to do what they did, but his Blazers would be doing something equally unethical if they had bought him in and locked him away for the rest of the year. Contradictions FTL.

 

+1. Chris Wallace is a joke.

 

I think many would wish to be "held hostage" at a guaranteed veteran minimum for doing nothing.

 

Darius had a stellar game tonight: 4 points, 3 boards, 5 TOs, and a +/- of -24... ouch. That's a lot in just 16 mins.

 

i'm not sure that what many would wish is relevant in any way to the situation. miles is making millions regardless. he has a contract and is getting paid whether the money is on portland's cap or not. the veteran minimum is much less than what he's already making and i think he's made it pretty clear that he wants to play basketball. i'd say that most people in his situation with his desires absolutely want to go wherever it is that they'll have a chance to play(in the nba) rather than to be "held hostage" and make a little bit more money.

 

Interesting to see what their plan will be now that Iavaroni has been fired.

 

Memphis went dirty first, and the Blazers responded as they could within the CBA to protect their money and their asset. Once a basic trust in business is violated, things get ugly. I just don't like the Blazers being portrayed as the bad guys when they have done everything by the book.

 

How so? How is abiding by the contract and keeping a player that no other team in the league wanted to claim unethical? I'd love to hear the answer how signing the Grizzlies' trash is unethical. Memphis didn't even see the guy worthy of keeping around, so they cut him. The Blazers would haven't had a shot at Miles if Memphis had never released him.

 

i'm still trying to figure out why there needs to be a "bad guy" in this situation. i'm not seeing one.