Looking back at the Garnett and Gasol trades

[laker-bob]

What it comes down to is what was available at the time the trades were made.  Yes, looking back on it, Memphis got a decent deal for Pau, but that's only b/c the 48th pick in a weak draft happened to pan out.  Look at all the other players drafted around Marc and none of them are in the league anymore.  You want to say that Memphis knew he was good...probably, but i'm sure no one in the organization thought he'd be doing this good this early (it's a testament to him losing the weight). 

The point is the Memphis could have gotten an even BETTER deal had they played the whole thing out like a good franchise would do.  They could have gotten cap relief AND a highly touted young player if they had really shopped around for it.  The fact of the matter is they didn't, they shipped out an allstar to a team with close ties to West (yes, i know he wasn't technically with the franchise anymore, but i'm sure he was still friendly with them) for a bunch of nothing at the time. 

In the words of Chevy Chase in Dirty Work 'hindsight is 20/20 my friend'

Pau Gasol was on the market for over a year, almost two years.  Nobody wanted him.  Over that period, Memphis tried to get as much as could in return, but there were no takers.  How many of you were advocating a Jefferson + other assets for Gasol trade while he was on the market?  Who knows how many teams probably said "no" to Memphis. 

Don't cry after the fact because he went to the Lakers.  The execs that didn't want Gasol, or the fans that didn't think much of Gasol at the time, are a bunch of revisionists and hypocrites. 

Gasol is a great player, but he's also isn't the sole reason why the team's prospects are so good for the foreseeable future.  How about the wisdom in drafting Bynum?  It's these two guys together that are creating nightmarish problems for virtually everyone in the league.  Nobody "gifted" Bynum to the Lakers, who wouldn't be nearly as potent without him.

The KG & Pau trades are more equal than you think.  Marc Gasol plays on a team that doesn't run its offense through him.  And if Jefferson is so good, why haven't his teams been more successful?  They go to him, yet the results are still bad.  Says quite a bit about him, if you were to ask me.

What you are really upset about is the fact the Lakers actually have a brighter future, due to Andrew Bynum.  You guys are running out of time, while the Lakers have a blossoming big man who is only 22 years old.  Granted, he needs to stay healthy, but that's true for all players.

Speaking of revisionists history. People called foul as soon as the trade went down, even coaches like Popovich. The owner later came out and said they may have made a mistake. It was awful at the time. You can argue that things didn't turn out as one side as they started out but don't pretend that nobody wanted Gasol.

 

Right, no one ever thought of him as a soft European.  He wasn't even worth Gordon and Deng to one team.  So now we're expected to believe other teams were ready to give up more.

You think you gave up the goods dealing Jefferson?  Years ago, Lakers dealt Shaq away.  And yes, there's a direct link back to him. 

And why is it such a big deal that Marc Gasol was only a 48th pick?  Where was Ginobili taken?  If decision makers couldn't see the potential in Marc, that's their problem.  What matters is how he's actually turning out.  When it's all said and done, no one will think Jefferson was a vastly superior asset in comparison.

[laker-bob]

The KG & Pau trades are more equal than you think.  Marc Gasol plays on a team that doesn't run its offense through him.  And if Jefferson is so good, why haven't his teams been more successful?  They go to him, yet the results are still bad.  Says quite a bit about him, if you were to ask me.

What you are really upset about is the fact the Lakers actually have a brighter future, due to Andrew Bynum.  You guys are running out of time, while the Lakers have a blossoming big man who is only 22 years old.  Granted, he needs to stay healthy, but that's true for all players.

  Kobe would never see the playoffs with the cast Al's had to play with. And so far Bynum's not a franchise center.

He plays like a franchise center 10 games a year. Clocks ticking on the next time somebody steps on his foot and he is out for 30 games.

You mean if Bynum lands awkwardly on someone else's foot.  Don't see how someone stepping on his foot would be harmful.

This is merely questioning the luck factor, not his abilities.    Majority of the league wishes they had him.  How many centers are better than he is?  Just Dwight.  You'd likely swap Perkins for Bynum in a heartbeat.

I'd rather have a C I can depend on for the whole year than Bynum.  Bynum's got worlds of potential but when he can play a whole year healthy we'll talk.

Also, there aren't any centers besides Dwight Howard that I'd rather have on the defensive end. 

I agree completely. I can't really give any credit to Bynum until he at least plays one good healthy year. I don't care if he has bad luck or whatever. If he can show me something for at least a year then I would consider otherwise but right now I don't want bad luck on my team. Not to mention isn't Bynum being paid more than Perk? Thats kind of laughable at this point. He was just rated as the most over-paid player in the league.

And Garnett's 13/7 makes him worth every penny.

[twinbree]

I wouldn't swap Perk for Bynum. Potential doesn't help the team when it is sitting on the bench in the suit. He has yet to show that he can stay healthy and consistently play at a high level to help his team. Even Big Baby with that significant girth and height disadvantage has had a more productive playoff career than Bynum.

And Garnett's 13/7 makes him worth every penny.

First of all just because someone else is potentially being overpaid out there doesn't make an overpaid player on your team any less overpaid. And 2nd did you just try to compare KG to Bynum?

[CoachCowens]

What it comes down to is what was available at the time the trades were made.  Yes, looking back on it, Memphis got a decent deal for Pau, but that's only b/c the 48th pick in a weak draft happened to pan out.  Look at all the other players drafted around Marc and none of them are in the league anymore.  You want to say that Memphis knew he was good...probably, but i'm sure no one in the organization thought he'd be doing this good this early (it's a testament to him losing the weight). 

The point is the Memphis could have gotten an even BETTER deal had they played the whole thing out like a good franchise would do.  They could have gotten cap relief AND a highly touted young player if they had really shopped around for it.  The fact of the matter is they didn't, they shipped out an allstar to a team with close ties to West (yes, i know he wasn't technically with the franchise anymore, but i'm sure he was still friendly with them) for a bunch of nothing at the time. 

In the words of Chevy Chase in Dirty Work 'hindsight is 20/20 my friend'

Pau Gasol was on the market for over a year, almost two years.  Nobody wanted him.  Over that period, Memphis tried to get as much as could in return, but there were no takers.  How many of you were advocating a Jefferson + other assets for Gasol trade while he was on the market?  Who knows how many teams probably said "no" to Memphis. 

Don't cry after the fact because he went to the Lakers.  The execs that didn't want Gasol, or the fans that didn't think much of Gasol at the time, are a bunch of revisionists and hypocrites. 

Gasol is a great player, but he's also isn't the sole reason why the team's prospects are so good for the foreseeable future.  How about the wisdom in drafting Bynum?  It's these two guys together that are creating nightmarish problems for virtually everyone in the league.  Nobody "gifted" Bynum to the Lakers, who wouldn't be nearly as potent without him.

The KG & Pau trades are more equal than you think.  Marc Gasol plays on a team that doesn't run its offense through him.  And if Jefferson is so good, why haven't his teams been more successful?  They go to him, yet the results are still bad.  Says quite a bit about him, if you were to ask me.

What you are really upset about is the fact the Lakers actually have a brighter future, due to Andrew Bynum.  You guys are running out of time, while the Lakers have a blossoming big man who is only 22 years old.  Granted, he needs to stay healthy, but that's true for all players.

Speaking of revisionists history. People called foul as soon as the trade went down, even coaches like Popovich. The owner later came out and said they may have made a mistake. It was awful at the time. You can argue that things didn't turn out as one side as they started out but don't pretend that nobody wanted Gasol.

 

Right, no one ever thought of him as a soft European.  He wasn't even worth Gordon and Deng to one team.  So now we're expected to believe other teams were ready to give up more.

You think you gave up the goods dealing Jefferson?  Years ago, Lakers dealt Shaq away.  And yes, there's a direct link back to him. 

And why is it such a big deal that Marc Gasol was only a 48th pick?  Where was Ginobili taken?  If decision makers couldn't see the potential in Marc, that's their problem.  What matters is how he's actually turning out.  When it's all said and done, no one will think Jefferson was a vastly superior asset in comparison.

Could some GM's have viewed him as soft. sure. Are you denying that many if not most saw this as a terrible trade at the time? Go read any of the national pundits take on the trade at the time.

Here is what Popovich said at the time
"What they did in Memphis is beyond comprehension," said Popovich. "There should be a trade committee that can scratch all trades that make no sense. I just wish I had been on a trade committee that oversees NBA trades. I'd like to elect myself to that committee. I would have voted no to the L.A. trade."

I wasn't defending the trade of Jefferson. But since your having trouble with trades at the time were made vs looking at the trades  now. The C's got the better end of their deal at that time but they also gave Minny their number 1 pick back from an earlier deal, Ryan Gomes a good backup and Big AL one of the top young big men at the time.

At the time they were made the KG trade was closer to equal value.

[chelsearules]

Speaking of revisionists history. People called foul as soon as the trade went down, even coaches like Popovich. The owner later came out and said they may have made a mistake. It was awful at the time. You can argue that things didn't turn out as one side as they started out but don't pretend that nobody wanted Gasol.

I agree completely. I can't really give any credit to Bynum until he at least plays one good healthy year. I don't care if he has bad luck or whatever. If he can show me something for at least a year then I would consider otherwise but right now I don't want bad luck on my team. Not to mention isn't Bynum being paid more than Perk? Thats kind of laughable at this point. He was just rated as the most over-paid player in the league.

Big Baby with that significant girth and height disadvantage has had a more productive playoff career than Bynum.

[RAcker]

Marc's outplaying Pao so far this year.

Adam Morrison's outplaying Pau Gasol this year...

True, but he's still uglier.

Uglier than this?

[laker-bob]

I wouldn't swap Perk for Bynum. Potential doesn't help the team when it is sitting on the bench in the suit. He has yet to show that he can stay healthy and consistently play at a high level to help his team. Even Big Baby with that significant girth and height disadvantage has had a more productive playoff career than Bynum.

And Garnett's 13/7 makes him worth every penny.

First of all just because someone else is potentially being overpaid out there doesn't make an overpaid player on your team any less overpaid. And 2nd did you just try to compare KG to Bynum?

At this point in time, Bynum's a better player.  That's not exactly saying much because he's much younger.  Dwight Howard is better than Shaq right now, but obviously Shaq's legacy and historical standing is much greater. 

The Lakers are paying a lot for Bynum, but it's likely he would have gotten more on the open market (he was due to become a restricted FA).  And considering what the Blazers are paying for Aldridge, and what the Warriors are paying for Biedrins, I think the Lakers got a fair deal for Bynum.  The 4th and final year is a team option.

Back to Marc Gasol, he's clearly a player on the rise.  Jefferson is struggling coming back from surgery, and it's tough to learn the triangle system that Rambis is running.  The league is filled with individual talents that can put up numbers with minutes and opportunities.  The challenge is for the GMs to find the right pieces to fit around them.  They need to have a system in place, find the guys that fit into a system, and develop chemistry.  The Hawks have done a great job doing this over the past few years. 

[Fafnir]

Now you're claiming the Hawks are well run? 

They've had a great start, but lets not go nuts. They passed on how many great players for Marvin Williams....

[laker-bob]

Now you're claiming the Hawks are well run? 

They've had a great start, but lets not go nuts. They passed on how many great players for Marvin Williams....

They won't win a championship, but look at their win totals the past five years.  Clippers, Grizz, and T-Pups would kill to have that level of front office competence. 

[Fafnir]

Now you're claiming the Hawks are well run? 

They've had a great start, but lets not go nuts. They passed on how many great players for Marvin Williams....

They won't win a championship, but look at their win totals the past five years.  Clippers, Grizz, and T-Pups would kill to have that level of front office competence. 

So they're not one of the worst three teams in the league? That's now a considered "well run"?

47
37
30
26

They've improved, but they're not well run by any means.

[laker-bob]

Now you're claiming the Hawks are well run? 

They've had a great start, but lets not go nuts. They passed on how many great players for Marvin Williams....

They won't win a championship, but look at their win totals the past five years.  Clippers, Grizz, and T-Pups would kill to have that level of front office competence. 

So they're not one of the worst three teams in the league? That's now a considered "well run"?

47
37
30
26

They've improved, but they're not well run by any means.

If that's not considered well run, then what is?  They should still look to improve, but they've risen from the bottom to become one of the top four teams in their conference.  What would they have to do to win you over?  Win 70 games?

[Fafnir]

Now you're claiming the Hawks are well run? 

They've had a great start, but lets not go nuts. They passed on how many great players for Marvin Williams....

They won't win a championship, but look at their win totals the past five years.  Clippers, Grizz, and T-Pups would kill to have that level of front office competence. 

So they're not one of the worst three teams in the league? That's now a considered "well run"?

47
37
30
26

They've improved, but they're not well run by any means.

If that's not considered well run, then what is?  They should still look to improve, but they've risen from the bottom to become one of the top four teams in their conference.  What would they have to do to win you over?  Win 70 games?

Posting back to back winning seasons, which they look likely to do this year.

They had 9 losing seasons in a row before last year, that's not well run.

edit:fixed a brain fart.