Memphis owner comments on Gasol trade

[Redz]

If the biggest value in a player with an expiring contract is his expiring contract, then there is something wrong with the system.  Basically Theo Ratliff and Pao Gasol were of equal value in their respective deals.  Strip down the LA/Memphis deals and the Boston/Minnesota deals and that's about what it comes down to.  If you're willing to say KG is a better player than Gasol, then the "extra" the Celtics were paying for him was a young talent in Big Al and some other parts.  That offsets difference in talent between Gasol & KG in their respective trades, and what you have left is the value of the expiring contracts (Gasol & Ratliff).

If a GM sees that the value of a star level player is solely his expiring contract and he will be receiving nothing in return for talent part of the quotient, would it kill him to hang on to his star player?  Let him play out his contract and let your team have some semblance of attempting to compete while he's still there.

If a star player's contract is about to expire, and the only value he has is the expiring contract, why not just let it expire?

I don't know the ins and outs of the NFL's "franchise tag" but it sounds like the NBA needs a similar clause (though it will never happen)

[connerhenry43]

The problem I have with the gasol trade was this: he made it roughly 1 month before the trade deadline.

If the grizz did it the day of the deadline, knew they were getting 50 cents on the dollar, but felt they had no other choice to move him (disregarding the Bulls rumored offer for the moment, which was much better, IMHO), I would understand it. However, the fact that it was made so early raised suspicion in my eyes.

Yet, the C’s get garnett, for in exchange for Al Jefferson (a stud), Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Gerald Green, Theo Ratliff (a huge salary cap slot), cash considerations, Boston's 2009 first-round draft pick (top 3 protected) and the 2009 first-round pick Minnesota had traded to Boston in the Ricky Davis-Wally Szczerbiak trade of 2006, and more people think there was something shady going on between mchale and ainge.

unbelievable.  

[Roy Hobbs]

Is there any way the league can look into the fairness of this trade? I mean there MUST have been something happening under the table, given they did not shop Gasol to other teams. I can't believe they accepted the Lakers offer, merely because they were waiting for a team to do them the honor of asking for Gasol.

If you think this trade is unfair, which team do you think can come up with a better deal, in terms of future talent and finanical relief?

The problem for Chris Wallace is:

1. He need a big expiration contract.
2. He cannot take on any more salary.

In NBA, talent = money. Better talent, more money. Equal talent = equal money.

Teams like Minnesota and Seattle has young talent and expirating contract but they also do not want to take Gasol's contract. Mavs, Spurs, Suns do not have expirating contracts. Portland has young talent but no expirating contract.

Miami, for starters.  They had Ricky Davis and Jason Williams' expiring deals.  Chicago could have worked something out with P.J. Brown's contract.  They could have gotten involved in a three way deal with New Jersey and Dallas, which had the expiring with Keith Van Horn's contract, or just contacted Dallas alone.  A three-way trade with Seattle or Minnesota (although Minnesota should have just bitten the bullet and taken on Gasol's salary long term, since he's only 27.  Cheap ownership).

Don't underestimate three-way trades.  Wallace had plenty of time to work one out, and he jumped at the first crap offer that came along, apparently.  Crittendon is garbage, Kwame is less than garbage, and two late first rounders are garbage.

[Chris]

For the first time, even [Memphis owner Michael] Heisley wondered whether his general manager, Chris Wallace, blew it by caving so soon to the Lakers.

“I don’t know if I got the most value,” Heisley confessed. “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…”
...
 “Our people told me that we weren’t able to get equal trade value for Gasol and that we needed to do a deal that would give us cap space and draft picks. It was no secret in the league that we were considering offers for him, but the Lakers were the one team that stepped up.”
...
"I have no buyer’s remorse".

That last part just shows he's an idiot.  As for Wallace, I'm still shocked that he'd take the Lakers offer without at least seeing what else was out there.  Maybe he truly was intent on screwing the Celtics over.

The article did shed some insight on at least what one of the offers was, as well:

For Gasol and Memphis’ Hakim Warrick, the Bulls were willing to part with Andres Nocioni, Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah, Thabo Sefolosha, possibly Adrian Griffin and draft picks.

That's not the world's best package, but at least it was credible.

Link.

I don't know why this is even being discussed.  This was not a basketball trade, it was a business deal.  There was no other deal out there where they would get an expiring contract, a low level rookie contract, and a couple draft picks.  It saved the franchise a ton of money.

If they made the Bulls deal, they would be overpaying Nocioni, and then paying another 7-12 million per year for the other three guys.

Heisley is cheap, plain and simple.

[clover]

No point making too big a stink of it.  Mostly only C's fans realize that Danny is really capable of putting together the turnaround he did, AND that Chris Wallace is really capable of pulling the trigger for Gasol when and as he did.

[Donoghus]

For the first time, even [Memphis owner Michael] Heisley wondered whether his general manager, Chris Wallace, blew it by caving so soon to the Lakers.

“I don’t know if I got the most value,” Heisley confessed. “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…”
...
 “Our people told me that we weren’t able to get equal trade value for Gasol and that we needed to do a deal that would give us cap space and draft picks. It was no secret in the league that we were considering offers for him, but the Lakers were the one team that stepped up.”
...
"I have no buyer’s remorse".

That last part just shows he's an idiot.  As for Wallace, I'm still shocked that he'd take the Lakers offer without at least seeing what else was out there.  Maybe he truly was intent on screwing the Celtics over.

The article did shed some insight on at least what one of the offers was, as well:

For Gasol and Memphis’ Hakim Warrick, the Bulls were willing to part with Andres Nocioni, Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah, Thabo Sefolosha, possibly Adrian Griffin and draft picks.

That's not the world's best package, but at least it was credible.

Link.

I don't know why this is even being discussed.  This was not a basketball trade, it was a business deal.  There was no other deal out there where they would get an expiring contract, a low level rookie contract, and a couple draft picks.  It saved the franchise a ton of money.

If they made the Bulls deal, they would be overpaying Nocioni, and then paying another 7-12 million per year for the other three guys.

Heisley is a cheap ****, plain and simple.

Pretty much sums up my feelings. 

[seccom]

Is there any way the league can look into the fairness of this trade? I mean there MUST have been something happening under the table, given they did not shop Gasol to other teams. I can't believe they accepted the Lakers offer, merely because they were waiting for a team to do them the honor of asking for Gasol.

If you think this trade is unfair, which team do you think can come up with a better deal, in terms of future talent and finanical relief?

The problem for Chris Wallace is:

1. He need a big expiration contract.
2. He cannot take on any more salary.

In NBA, talent = money. Better talent, more money. Equal talent = equal money.

Teams like Minnesota and Seattle has young talent and expirating contract but they also do not want to take Gasol's contract. Mavs, Spurs, Suns do not have expirating contracts. Portland has young talent but no expirating contract.

Miami, for starters.  They had Ricky Davis and Jason Williams' expiring deals.  Chicago could have worked something out with P.J. Brown's contract.  They could have gotten involved in a three way deal with New Jersey and Dallas, which had the expiring with Keith Van Horn's contract, or just contacted Dallas alone.  A three-way trade with Seattle or Minnesota (although Minnesota should have just bitten the bullet and taken on Gasol's salary long term, since he's only 27.  Cheap ownership).

Don't underestimate three-way trades.  Wallace had plenty of time to work one out, and he jumped at the first crap offer that came along, apparently.  Crittendon is garbage, Kwame is less than garbage, and two late first rounders are garbage.

Chicago will not be in conversation, however, it is not talent, but money. They are not willing to pay any luxury tax. You can go to some of Bulls' fan forum and talk to them. They will have a lot of things to say about their owner regarding this non-trade for them.

Miami is an interesting case. They are a possibility, especially their future picks. My guess is money also involved there also. You have to remember they still have Shaq's 20 millions a year contract at the time of the trade.

DWade + Gasol + Shaq would be interesting.

[Roy Hobbs]

How about this three way deal (just throwing something out there, to show how possible it would have been.  Salaries may not match up exactly):

To Memphis: Noah, Jason Williams, Ricky Davis, Chicago #1
To Chicago: Gasol, J.C. Navarro
To Miami: Ty Thomas, Sefoloha, Chris Duhon, Viktor Khryapa, other expiring contracts

Which team does this one not work for?  Memphis is still getting screwed, but they're getting screwed less than they did in the Lakers deal.  And there's any other number of combinations they could have attempted.  Lots of teams would have been willing to facilitate a deal.

[CoachCowens]

For the first time, even [Memphis owner Michael] Heisley wondered whether his general manager, Chris Wallace, blew it by caving so soon to the Lakers.

“I don’t know if I got the most value,” Heisley confessed. “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…”
...
 “Our people told me that we weren’t able to get equal trade value for Gasol and that we needed to do a deal that would give us cap space and draft picks. It was no secret in the league that we were considering offers for him, but the Lakers were the one team that stepped up.”
...
"I have no buyer’s remorse".

That last part just shows he's an idiot.  As for Wallace, I'm still shocked that he'd take the Lakers offer without at least seeing what else was out there.  Maybe he truly was intent on screwing the Celtics over.

The article did shed some insight on at least what one of the offers was, as well:

For Gasol and Memphis’ Hakim Warrick, the Bulls were willing to part with Andres Nocioni, Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah, Thabo Sefolosha, possibly Adrian Griffin and draft picks.

That's not the world's best package, but at least it was credible.

Link.

I don't know why this is even being discussed.  This was not a basketball trade, it was a business deal.  There was no other deal out there where they would get an expiring contract, a low level rookie contract, and a couple draft picks.  It saved the franchise a ton of money.

If they made the Bulls deal, they would be overpaying Nocioni, and then paying another 7-12 million per year for the other three guys.

Heisley is a cheap ****, plain and simple.

Then why overpay for Darko last summer?

[iowa plowboy]

Then why overpay for Darko last summer?

That was far more mind boggling than the Gasol trade to me.

You already have a group of players who play soft, if at all inside.... Gasol, Warrick, and Gay.  Why would you bring on another and overpay for him? 

It would depend on the picks whether the Chicago deal was that much better.  As it sits, I don't see it better than the deal Wallace got.  They'd be giving up their best player and their 3rd-4th best player, for a talented headcase who's a project, (very much like the talented athletic headcase, Stromile Swift whom they gave away twice) a stoner who's a project, and one solid player who fits their team.  No matter what is reported, I'm guessing Memphis would have gotten second rounders if they would've given up Thomas, Nocioni and Noah.  Noah will be a good role player but is a major project offensively.  Nocioni would have been perfect for a team like the Grizzlies.  They need toughness.  But Warrick is as good a player as Nocioni and fits the Bulls style of play better than Nocioni does.  So you're essentially trading a top tier player for two projects and "draft choices".  It doesn't improve the Grizzlies at all short term or long term.  If Chicago gave up a first rounder or first rounders, the comparison in the trades would be closer.

As it is, I think the Lakers trade suits what Grizzlies are trying to do better.  If they get even a good role player out of Marc Gasol...and consensus says he'll be at least that good, and if (big if) Wallace drafts well and uses cap space well this trade will be lopsided.  They weren't going anywhere with Gasol.  He's not tough enough to carry a team.  Stern has already for the most part sent a clear message that tanking teams aren't going to be rewarded with the first pick.  So it's unlikely with the third-5th pick they find a star that Gasol can be a supporting player to.

[Brickowski]

If I ran the Grizz, I would have made the same deal.  It saved 50-60 million dollars and the team was going nowhere with Gasol.  It remains to be seen how Memphis uses those two first rounders and how Javarais Crittendon develops.

The alleged offer from the Bulls is just a pile of crap.  The only player in the package of any real interest is Sefolosha.

The Darko signing is a separate issue, but he's still only 23 years old, right?

[CoachCowens]

If I ran the Grizz, I would have made the same deal.  It saved 50-60 million dollars and the team was going nowhere with Gasol.  It remains to be seen how Memphis uses those two first rounders and how Javarais Crittendon develops.

The alleged offer from the Bulls is just a pile of crap.  The only player in the package of any real interest is Sefolosha.

The Darko signing is a separate issue, but he's still only 23 years old, right?

If saving money was your only factor then yes. I think the number is right around 50 million over 3 years. But why not shop around a little more save 30 - 40 million and position your team to get better. Wallace shouldn't have feared the lakers taking this offer of the table. Maybe even extract a little more from the Lakers. With Bynum hurt the Grizzles held all the chips.

The other thing is you would have to recognize that you set up a team in your conference to be a powerhouse for years to come.

[seccom]

If I ran the Grizz, I would have made the same deal.  It saved 50-60 million dollars and the team was going nowhere with Gasol.  It remains to be seen how Memphis uses those two first rounders and how Javarais Crittendon develops.

The alleged offer from the Bulls is just a pile of crap.  The only player in the package of any real interest is Sefolosha.

The Darko signing is a separate issue, but he's still only 23 years old, right?

If saving money was your only factor then yes. I think the number is right around 50 million over 3 years. But why not shop around a little more save 30 - 40 million and position your team to get better. Wallace shouldn't have feared the lakers taking this offer of the table. Maybe even extract a little more from the Lakers. With Bynum hurt the Grizzles held all the chips.

The other thing is you would have to recognize that you set up a team in your conference to be a powerhouse for years to come.

Is it true 50 million is more than 30 - 40 millions?

You also have to remember, Memphis' owner want to sell the team ASAP. He may not be the owner next year. Why would he care what happen next year?

This trade also tell you something about the NBA as a business. Fans may care the teams' record, the owners may not.

In LA, there are 2 teams, Lakers and Clippers.

How many owners do not think are similar to Jerry Buss of the Lakers and how many of them are similar to Donald Sterling of the Clippers?

I bet there are more Sterling than Buss.

[EJPLAYA]

For the first time, even [Memphis owner Michael] Heisley wondered whether his general manager, Chris Wallace, blew it by caving so soon to the Lakers.

“I don’t know if I got the most value,” Heisley confessed. “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…”
...
 “Our people told me that we weren’t able to get equal trade value for Gasol and that we needed to do a deal that would give us cap space and draft picks. It was no secret in the league that we were considering offers for him, but the Lakers were the one team that stepped up.”
...
"I have no buyer’s remorse".

Ahem...wouldn't the correct term be "seller's remorse"?

It would HAVE to be sellers remorse since they didn't get anything in return for Gasol.

[the_Bird]

Probably not an issue, but you never know....

Since he's selling the team anyway...  the once nice thing about those real low Laker 1st rounders is that the rookie scale for guys picked at the end of the first round is what, $750k-ish?  You get to sell to your fans that "we can rebuild around these first round draft picks" and have negligible financial committment.  Plus, you get Chris Wallace talking out his hindquarters about "Getting Marc Gasol is basically like getting another lottery pick!"  Who'd he say that about here?  Jiri?  Shammond Williams?  I distinctly remember him using that same line about some crap player we got in a deal....

What doesn't make sense to me, if the owner is doing the Gaston-plan to sell out and maximize value...  wouldn't it seem likely that leaving the team in the state that it is in would depress what he might be able to sell it for?  I mean, you make investment decisions based on a long-term outlook, but the Grizz have basically been rendered a franchise that could be folded and no one would care.  How's that maximizing the value of his investment?