Heisley on Gasol trade: "maybe we would’ve gotten more"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Astral @ Jun 5 2008, 02:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Dude, people gave you several scenarios that would have been better for Memphis.</div>

No they didn't give me any scenarios. Lavalamp gave me teams with expiring contracts, I've said quite clearly that many GMs did not want to pay LT.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If Memphis really wanted to save a lot of money, they could have given Gasol to Miami. For example, Davis and J-Will have a combined salary around $15M and both are expiring. Tell Miami they want a 1st rounder next year and a 2nd rounder this year. And they can probably send some baggage to Miami to equalize the salaries. Hell, if they played with them, they could have added on either Swift or Cardinal in exchange for someone decent.</div>

Making up trades on the spot?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Wallace is a retard. Cmon, $9M contract, Javaris Crit and 2 late first rounds? Are you kidding? You don't trade away all-star big men for $9M expiring contracts and 3 late 1st round picks.</div>

So are the other GMs in the league.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Jun 5 2008, 02:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Some times teams wait to make offers, and we have no idea what offers were on the table. Some teams realize later on that they need to make a trade to make the playoffs or become a contender. If the Grizzlies continued to test the market, and as it approached more towards the deadline they probably would have gotten more serious offers.</div>

The LT killed the willingness for teams to want to make deals. As it is, you've given me only Dallas as a good indication of a contender with expiring contracts willing to go over the cap by an egregious amount.

It is quite possible to make a better offer for Gasol, but none were made for the various reasons stated. LA gave a comparable deal, in relation to the rest of the league.

 

I'm not going to go digging around but just quickly found this one from two years back.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/17174804/site/21683474/

There will be no Grizzlies organization. There is nowhere left for them to move that will actually sell tickets.

Expiring contracts are about getting room for FA. How many FA wanted to come to Memphis before? Think how many want to come now.

You are saying that the Lakers offer was the best offer because they had plenty of time to get offers in yet he is publicly admitting he jumped the gun before checking around for better offers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Universe @ Jun 5 2008, 02:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not going to go digging around but just quickly found this one from two years back.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/17174804/site/21683474/</div>

What's the big deal about this? I've mentioned Chicago. Where are the details on what Chicago did put on the table in the end?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>There will be no Grizzlies organization. There is nowhere left for them to move that will actually sell tickets.

Expiring contracts are about getting room for FA. How many FA wanted to come to Memphis before? Think how many want to come now.</div>

Expiring contracts are about various things. Like selling a team since there indeed will be no more Grizzlies at this pace.

Taking in awful contracts hurts the Grizz.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You are saying that the Lakers offer was the best offer because they had plenty of time to get offers in yet he is publicly admitting he jumped the gun before checking around for better offers.</div>

No he publicly admitted that he could have waited a bit longer. Which is true, although another fact is that many teams did not have better offers. This wasn't done in early November, it was February.

 

Yeah and no other team could have been interested in Gasol? I absolutely hate Gasol but I still know what he could do for the Nets or any other team if he went there.

You know what else hurts the Grizzlies? Trading away your star for garbage so either way, it's a horrible thing.

Yes it was done in Febuary still before any other team had started the trade deadline stuff. No where does he stat in that article that no team had a better offer. He hadn't traded him the year he demanded a trade and out of the blue, the jump the gun and cut ties with him but still keep Mike Miller and other contract killers.

Hmm, great trade. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions so you just must see it differently than the rest of us.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Universe @ Jun 5 2008, 02:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah and no other team could have been interested in Gasol? I absolutely hate Gasol but I still know what he could do for the Nets or any other team if he went there.</div>

Yeah and GMs need 5 months to be able to offer something?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You know what else hurts the Grizzlies? Trading away your star for garbage so either way, it's a horrible thing.</div>

They're competing for a title in the West? I am completely willing to listen to these awesome deals they voided.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Yes it was done in Febuary still before any other team had started the trade deadline stuff.</div>

Speculation. Teams don't just wait around for other teams to make offers and then react to them. They don't procrastinate till the very end the way little kids do with their homework.

Further, teams did not want to trade for Pau, having the ability to or not. Nor are they all contenders just one piece away.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>No where does he stat in that article that no team had a better offer. He hadn't traded him the year he demanded a trade and out of the blue, the jump the gun and cut ties with him but still keep Mike Miller and other contract killers.</div>

Why was it out of the blue? Obviously no one was stepping up in the Pau sweepstakes.

It is not easy to trade contract killers, Chicago would know.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Hmm, great trade. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions so you just must see it differently than the rest of us.</div>

Having an opinion, and making up trades that weren't there are different.

 

Speculation? Ha! Just like you are stating nobody offered anything before. Did anyone even know he was on the block? Where was that Laker offer two years ago when he demanded a trade? Like I stated, Memphis pulled the trigger on the first sign of draft picks not realizing what the Lakers would turn out to be.

Like I said, you get to choose what to believe. Sometimes it's not the common choice and sometimes it is.

I'm sure Memphis will be sending LA thank-you cards in the mail once they don't have to pay anyone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Universe @ Jun 5 2008, 03:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Speculation? Ha! Just like you are stating nobody offered anything before.</div>

What are you talking about? If I am wrong, provide me with the correct evidence and I will gladly retract any previous comments.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>
Did anyone even know he was on the block? Where was that Laker offer two years ago when he demanded a trade? Like I stated, Memphis pulled the trigger on the first sign of draft picks not realizing what the Lakers would turn out to be.</div>

Did anyone else have a better deal on the table? As a GM it is their job to find this out, and Pau was on the block for a while.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Like I said, you get to choose what to believe. Sometimes it's not the common choice and sometimes it is.

I'm sure Memphis will be sending LA thank-you cards in the mail once they don't have to pay anyone.</div>

Teams did not want to take a risk in Pau, that is there problem.

If GMs have to wait five months before they offer something better, they are terrible GMs. In fact, many teams in this league lack the desire plus capability to offer the correct value.

 

Provide a link where the GM stats the Lakers offer was the best availible.

This combines with the GMs not knowing he was on the block. Yes, it's the GMs job to look for players on the block and like I stated, it was before most trades are made and why if the Grizzlies weren't competing like you said, pull the trigger that much before the trade deadline? Even with that, not try and include Brian Cardinal or others.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Universe @ Jun 5 2008, 03:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Provide a link where the GM stats the Lakers offer was the best availible.</div>

Ridiculous, the deal was made to the team offering the most at that particular time. The proof is in the action. Not every team has what the Lakers offered, this is quite clear from their talks with Chicago.

You on the other hand make up deals out of nowhere. You entered the thread ignoring the special circumstances around this trade.

Further, you admit that you have no proof of your stance with this statement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>This combines with the GMs not knowing he was on the block. Yes, it's the GMs job to look for players on the block and like I stated, it was before most trades are made and why if the Grizzlies weren't competing like you said, pull the trigger that much before the trade deadline? Even with that, not try and include Brian Cardinal or others.</div>

Pull the trigger? They waited until February, did most trades in the league even occur after Pau's? Fact-checking would result in me admitting to any erroneous statements, if they occurred.

Your problem is that there are only a handful of teams that think they are contending, have the pieces, vision, and desire to go over the cap in order to complete this trade. Nothing at that time materialized.

 

The most or the first?

“Maybe our people should’ve shopped (Gasol) more and maybe we would’ve gotten more, done a better deal. Maybe Chris did call every team in the league. I don’t think he did, but maybe he should’ve…”

Seems like in this line, they pulled the trigger early. And yes, most deals followed Pau's...well at least the big ones.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Universe @ Jun 5 2008, 03:28 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The most or the first?

“Maybe our people should’ve shopped (Gasol) more and maybe we would’ve gotten more, done a better deal. Maybe Chris did call every team in the league. I don’t think he did, but maybe he should’ve…” Seems like in this line, they pulled the trigger early.</div>

The Grizz waited until February to shop Pau around? An inaccurate statement.

Where are these better deals? You cannot give me a straight answer. The Owner himself is speculating; a better deal could have been reached, but then with only a handful of teams. What the Lakers provided was in the top tier of available deals, this is quite evident.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And yes, most deals followed Pau's...well at least the big ones.</div>

The issue is that GMs didn't have the balls to make those deals until the realization of LA's dominance sunk in. They sat on their hands, that is only their fault.

If it takes you until the end of a deadline to make a good offer to a team, you are playing with fire. You need to check your sources, and stay in touch with the trading game.

 

They were shopping him around for two years yet with a losing team and didn't wait till the deadline to deal him. Look what the teams who waited got.

Straight answer? You have absolutely no proof either that there wasn't a better deal on the table or that the Lakers were the only team and the first team to offer.

The balls? Not every GM is dealing with someone as stupid as Wallace. Nets wanted cap space yet they got Devin Harris and look, Miami could get cap space and they still got someone 2000 times more talented than Kwame.

Fact is he just admitted he made a mistake and pulled the trigger on a stupid trade. I know you won't admit it for some stupid reason considering the Lakers got Pau and Grizzlies got "cap space".

 

I don't understand this argument at all. The Grizz made a stupid deal and probably could have gotten better than what they did, which was trash. If you are a Lakers fan you smile and be glad it happened, not argue that you gave away so many assets.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>By your own admission, you said you can only think of comparable deals, not better ones. There was no deal on the table superior to LA's.</div>

How are we supposed to know what offers on the table? Did you?

It's not like every proposed trade winds up in the LA Times.

Basically, the trade boils down to this. Pau Gasol, a 7'0" All-Star PF/C in his prime, a player who could lead your team in points, rebounds, or even assists on any given night, was traded away for cap room. The late first round picks mean nothing, nor does Crittenton, especially with Lowry and Conley, Jr. on the roster.

So then you get into the issue of cap room vs. having Gasol on the roster. That's like saying you'd cut Pau Gasol just for cap room. I personally think that having Pau Gasol makes the Grizzlies a much more interesting product, even if they're not winning. He'd put fans in the seats, and more importantly, Grizzlies fans wouldn't be as completely turned off to the franchise like they are now. Most fans lost trust in management a long time ago, so this trade just put a stake in the coffin.

And furthermore, if cap was the sole purpose of the trade, then why couldn't the Grizzlies at least milk it to where the Lakers took Cardinal in the deal? The custodian is arguably the league's biggest deadweight contract. The least Wallace could have done is gotten him off of Memphis' books.

I also think the idea that cap room helps the Grizzlies from any perspective other than a financial perspective is bullshit. What free agent are the Grizzlies going to get that's better than Pau Gasol? He was paid a hell of a lot of money, but he was worth it on the Memphis scale. What other player would want to play for a dying franchise like the Grizzlies in one of the league's smallest markets with nonexistant attendance? They're not going to bring in a Jamison or Brand in free agency. At best they'll pull someone like Monta Ellis, and that'd even be a stretch.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voodoo Child @ Jun 5 2008, 03:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>By your own admission, you said you can only think of comparable deals, not better ones. There was no deal on the table superior to LA's.</div>

How are we supposed to know what offers on the table? Did you?

It's not like every proposed trade winds up in the LA Times.

Basically, the trade boils down to this. Pau Gasol, a 7'0" All-Star PF/C in his prime, a player who could lead your team in points, rebounds, or even assists on any given night, was traded away for cap room. The late first round picks mean nothing, nor does Crittenton, especially with Lowry and Conley, Jr. on the roster.

So then you get into the issue of cap room vs. having Gasol on the roster. That's like saying you'd cut Pau Gasol just for cap room. I personally think that having Pau Gasol makes the Grizzlies a much more interesting product, even if they're not winning. He'd put fans in the seats, and more importantly, Grizzlies fans wouldn't be completely turned off to the franchise like they are now if the trade had never gone through. Most fans lost trust in management a long time ago, so this trade just put a stake in the coffin.

And furthermore, if cap was the sole purpose of the trade, then why couldn't the Grizzlies at least milk it to where the Lakers took Cardinal in the deal? The custodian is arguably the league's biggest deadweight contract. The least Wallace could have done is gotten him off of Memphis' books.

I also think the idea that cap room helps the Grizzlies from any perspective other than a financial perspective is bullshit. What free agent are the Grizzlies going to get that's better than Pau Gasol? He was paid a hell of a lot of money, but he was worth it on the Memphis scale. What other player would want to play for a dying franchise like the Grizzlies in one of the league's smallest markets with nonexistant attendance? They're not going to bring in a Wade or a McGrady in free agency. At best they'll pull someone like Monta Ellis, and that'd even be a stretch.
</div>

Thank-you!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Universe @ Jun 5 2008, 03:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>They were shopping him around for two years yet with a losing team and didn't wait till the deadline to deal him. Look what the teams who waited got.</div>

As a GM, you do not put the onus on someone else to get in touch with you. Of course better deals were hypothetically possible, but do we even know if Phoenix and Dallas wanted to make these deals before they saw what LA did? So to say that for sure they got robbed is not true.

The reason LA won the trade, is because teams are cheap. Simple as that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Straight answer? You have absolutely no proof either that there wasn't a better deal on the table or that the Lakers were the only team and the first team to offer.</div>

That is simply not true. It is known league wide that many owners frankly did not want to go over the Luxury tax. The Lakers were not afraid of this and made the best offer on the table. That is why it was accepted.

The only question to argue was whether the Grizz should have dug deeper at teams in order to get a better offer. Having the Team trade Pau to the Lakers proves in the action itself that no other team had overcome them at that time. I can always say for a fact that the Lakers gave the grizz the best offer in that instant.

But all you talk about is rubbish rumor-mill trades that Kobe23 makes up in our Laker forum. Now if you were to get more specific, I would by force have to respect your sources. That isn't the case though.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The balls? Not every GM is dealing with someone as stupid as Wallace. Nets wanted cap space yet they got Devin Harris and look, Miami could get cap space and they still got someone 2000 times more talented than Kwame.</div>

You're talking again about two teams that made those trades after they saw what the Lakers did.

Then why didn't Chicago get Pau? Money was clearly a factor, and you continue to ignore it.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Fact is he just admitted he made a mistake and pulled the trigger on a stupid trade. I know you won't admit it for some stupid reason considering the Lakers got Pau and Grizzlies got "cap space".</div>

For some reason, you do not realize that I agree with you. It was indeed a lopsided trade (unless they get lucky when they pick in the draft), but compared to the rest of the league's incompetent GM's, it was very appropriate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Voodoo Child @ Jun 5 2008, 03:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>By your own admission, you said you can only think of comparable deals, not better ones. There was no deal on the table superior to LA's.</div>

How are we supposed to know what offers on the table? Did you?

It's not like every proposed trade winds up in the LA Times.</div>

So you're saying there was a better trade made, and that the grizz denied it? That is a conspiracy for which you need much more proof to make the case.

It is not an opinion to state that the Grizz made the best deal available in that moment.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Basically, the trade boils down to this. Pau Gasol, a 7'0" All-Star PF/C in his prime, a player who could lead your team in points, rebounds, or even assists on any given night, was traded away for cap room. The late first round picks mean nothing, nor does Crittenton, especially with Lowry and Conley, Jr. on the roster.</div>

Of course it means a lot, in relation to the rest of the league's offers. Critt was superfluous though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So then you get into the issue of cap room vs. having Gasol on the roster. That's like saying you'd cut Pau Gasol just for cap room. I personally think that having Pau Gasol makes the Grizzlies a much more interesting product, even if they're not winning. He'd put fans in the seats, and more importantly, Grizzlies fans wouldn't be as completely turned off to the franchise like they are now. Most fans lost trust in management a long time ago, so this trade just put a stake in the coffin.</div>

If the Grizz thought that cap space was more attractive, rightly so or not, and you were looking for cap space, the Lakers were your best bet at getting relief.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And furthermore, if cap was the sole purpose of the trade, then why couldn't the Grizzlies at least milk it to where the Lakers took Cardinal in the deal? The custodian is arguably the league's biggest deadweight contract. The least Wallace could have done is gotten him off of Memphis' books.</div>

Because again, compared to the other offers we had leverage to deny Cardinal.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>I also think the idea that cap room helps the Grizzlies from any perspective other than a financial perspective is bullshit. What free agent are the Grizzlies going to get that's better than Pau Gasol? He was paid a hell of a lot of money, but he was worth it on the Memphis scale. What other player would want to play for a dying franchise like the Grizzlies in one of the league's smallest markets with nonexistant attendance? They're not going to bring in a Jamison or Brand in free agency. At best they'll pull someone like Monta Ellis, and that'd even be a stretch.</div>

I don't necessarily think the Grizz made the right moves. I'm just saying that the owners are probably desperate to get it sold, and start a new and fresher foundation, so if that is their mentality, the LA deal was their best option after waiting all those months into the season.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Kid Chocolate @ Jun 5 2008, 03:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't understand this argument at all. The Grizz made a stupid deal and probably could have gotten better than what they did, which was trash. If you are a Lakers fan you smile and be glad it happened, not argue that you gave away so many assets.</div>

I do not think the deal was that terrible because most of the league was disrespecting the Grizz anyway.

 

You do not wait for people to call you? I've heard of plenty of GMs waiting for 'the call'.

LA won the trade because they traded absolutely nothing away. If the Suns traded away a bench player and kept Shawn Marion they would have looked pretty damn smart too.

The LT or winning? There is a difference between going over the LT while giving up talent and going over it to aquire talent for nothing. You are assuming again that no GM would go over it but has there been any reports? No.

Like I stated, you said no GM's offered before so I guess I have to respect your sources as well lol.

The Bulls have to pay Noc, Deng and Gordon big money while having no post pressence. Add that with a losing season and I'm sure they would have been right there offering for Pau but again you have inside sources stating it was money when nobody from the Bulls organization has said that.

Very appropriate? What for the Lakers to say yes? If I was in that situation I would say it was pretty appropirate for someone higher up to be fired.