Gasol traded to Lakers
- Thread starter Stojakovic
- Start date
- Status
Gargamel
Starter
I didn't like that Mitch said he wouldn't have attempted this trade had Bynum not gotten injured. I hope he means that he wouldn't have necessarily tried for Gasol, but maybe for someone else. If he wasn't actively trying to foist Kwame's contract on someone for anything in return, then geez.
So as far as Bynum's injury being the force behind the Gasol negotiations, there was indeed a silver lining to the black cloud that hovers around Lamar (or the green cloud, cough). Ironic if Odom's foot being in the wrong place ends up being his most important contribution of the season.
Last edited:
kingsfan101
Starter
Largely agree, but it also works the other way. Having Kobe ensured that they didn't suck too bad to land a high draft pick (the one year they went to lottery was when they had some injuries, and changed coaches mid season. That year though, they lucked out on Bynum). Of course, since they already have Kobe, they don't need a high pick to land a superstar to build around.
Actually, since they traded Shaq, they have been in a state most of us don't want the Kings to be in. Just good enough to make the playoffs as a low seed, and getting bumped off in the first round. It is to the credit of their management that they have managed to pick players via trades, draft and free agency, that getting Gasol has pushed them in the upper stratosphere.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
An announcer at some game today said this trade ought to be investigated. I don't know if he was joking or not. It's certainly the first thought that entered my mind.
What would our team be like if we traded Artets for Gasol? If the Griz wanted an expiring contract, he has all but guaranteed the contract will end in a few months.
This is not sour grapes as I may be one of the few on this forum except those from LA who actually occasionally like the Lakers. The trade stinks and not even the most convoluted of explanations can convince me that Gasol was not handed to the Lakers on a silver platter and it is not a matter of great negotiating that the Lakers were the benefactor.
It seems as legitimate as our losing Game 6.
What would our team be like if we traded Artets for Gasol? If the Griz wanted an expiring contract, he has all but guaranteed the contract will end in a few months.
This is not sour grapes as I may be one of the few on this forum except those from LA who actually occasionally like the Lakers. The trade stinks and not even the most convoluted of explanations can convince me that Gasol was not handed to the Lakers on a silver platter and it is not a matter of great negotiating that the Lakers were the benefactor.
It seems as legitimate as our losing Game 6.
Gargamel
Starter
The announcer was probably serious because I see the same sentiment on every board at RealGM. It's spilled milk tho since there's no investigating a bad GM with a bad MO. And I think we all know that it's because it's this team that people are upset. Baron to GS was applauded by all parties, for comparison. Sheed to Detroit was too. I similarly remember people wanting Stern to investigate Shaq to LA as if the spirit of free agency suddenly didn't apply to a HOF center.
It's a merely matter of timing, nothing more, nothing less. It hasn't been posted here, but Wallace did a Q/A article where he broke down why the Chicago deal died on the vine. He said, first, that they were only offering 2nd/3rd stringers. He said that at the time, Memphis wasn't ready to trade Gasol unless the price tag was higher than what the Bulls were offering. That implies that the Grizz owner hadn't made up his decision to dump the team (even though Wallace claims it was his decision alone to make this deal -- which I don't quite buy). Wallace sounds like he's trying to buffer perceptions on the disarray of the org for the next owner. He's playing up their supposed flexibility to the extent of claiming that Marc Gasol would've been a high first rounder next year.
Last edited:
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Gargy, if this has spilled everywhere, you can pardon me if I don't take your word that this is all on the up and up.
It may simply be one GM wanting to do a favor for another because his team is going to be sold and he will be out a job anyway. It may be one GM calling for advice from Stern and Stern thought it would be cool if LA got a little better to boost TV ratings and income for the NBA.
If everyone thinks it should be investigated, then it should be investigated don't ya think? Why wouldn't the Griz want Artest?
It may simply be one GM wanting to do a favor for another because his team is going to be sold and he will be out a job anyway. It may be one GM calling for advice from Stern and Stern thought it would be cool if LA got a little better to boost TV ratings and income for the NBA.
If everyone thinks it should be investigated, then it should be investigated don't ya think? Why wouldn't the Griz want Artest?
Gargamel
Starter
Glenn, there being a reason for the trade beyond the owner angle is certainly possible. Maybe it was a favor to Jerry West which was a favor to Kobe (whom West wants to see stay in LA). Wallace could then expect to have as much of West's expertise as he needs in return. Favors are part of the biz - West drafted Madsen as a favor to an agent, for example. Maybe Wallace wanted to stick it to Boston? Even so, Stern can't veto the trade for some internal motivation by a GM or for some favor that doesn't break an expressed rule. I don't think it needs to be investigated in that light. If there's no evidence of a rule violation (as in McHale and Joe Smith), there's no point to investigate other than to serve to the interests of fans whose opinion won't change regardless.
I do doubt Stern would have to be involved in such a deal. He looks like he just swallowed bird droppings every time discussion of a team being sold/moved comes up. He loves his expendable franchises.
I have opinions on why the Grizz wouldn't want Artest. The main one being that he'd be unhappy as hell there and watch out when he's unhappy.
Last edited:
kingsfan101
Starter
I think this is quite true. Also, bigger franchises shall be more comfortable with some other high ticket expenses, smaller franchises shall avoid (e.g., Phil is costing the Lakers $10M per year. I doubt many smaller franchises shall be ready to spend so much).
Gargamel
Starter
Ex: of LA's fortune vs small market blues: We can time travel back to 82 like Uncle Rico. LA claims another team's top overall pick and selects the tournament MVP right after winning the title. Meanwhile, Utah has to trade its 3rd pick (Nique) to save themselves from folding and they get John Drew in return.
Things aren't as bad as they were back then, yet still there's financial worry in Memphis whether or not it was the real reason for the trade. Team that already moved once. Their worries are on the heels of the NO owner warning his fanbase to start buying more tickets. City that already hosted a team that moved away.
Last edited:
And remember, Artest has made it abundantly clear - for him - that he wants to win a ring. The chances of that happening in Memphis are about the same as me winning the SuperLotto without buying a ticket.
tradepeja
Starter
That commentator was Mark Jackson during the Dallas vs. Detroit game and he was clearly joking.
As for Artest, his contract is not as big as Kwame's so his value was less to Memphis than Kwame.
Futuristic
G-League
KA_2
Bench
^ I agree, I can't believe that Kupchak would be so daft as to honestly believe that if Bynum were healthy that he wouldn't take Gasol for Kwame and Javaris, for whatever ridiculous reason you want to come up with. At least, I hope so, because otherwise we have the luckiest SOB running our favorite team perhaps in all of history.
mcsluggo
Starter
marshmallows aren't what I think of floating up here... (and perhaps cup should be replaced with bowl....)
Glenn
Hall of Famer
So you are willing to chalk up this gift as luck? As LA fans are saying Kupchak is daft, then how did he pull this off?
The big difference is that the Lakers have one of the NBA's 50 Greatest Players. This is a guy in his prime who is capable of carrying a team past the first round, just because of how good he is (remember, the Lakers should have beaten the Suns two years ago, but Kobe decided that he didn't want that to happen). LeBron carried his team all the way to the Finals last year. I know the Lakers are in the impossible Western conference, but the fact remains that they have an all-time great.
The Kings don't. It makes it a lot easier to retool when you already have the main piece.
Because he's Artest, I think. I'd rather have Kwame.
If the Grizzlies buy Kwame out and the Lakers re-sign him in 30 days, then I think the deal should be investigated, but until then, there's no evidence that these two GMs are "in this together". I don't know all the in's and out's of the CBA rules regarding this type of thing. It doesn't look like it's all on the up and up, but I don't know where we can say that the Lakers and Grizzlies are guilty of any illegal "collusion", even if the Grizzlies did give up Gasol for way less than they had to.
And if the Grizzlies decide to buy Kwame out and he re-signs with the Lakers, is that illegal? I know it's not necessarily fair, but can the Lakers or Grizzlies be penalized if there's proof that they arranged this in advance? Could this be a Joe Smith type situation?
Gargamel
Starter
Found some of Heisley's (owner) quotes. Chicago -is- known for lowballing from Krause on. Sounds like there's some spite in his answers.
"We had conversations with Chicago which were non-satisfactory," Heisley said. "They didn't want to take on the luxury-tax situation, and Los Angeles would. In this league, if you're in a big-market area you can afford to do those things.
"We negotiated as hard as we could for quality players, and [the Bulls] refused to give up anybody in their core group. What they offered us were guys who play on the second and third team, so we turned them down."
chrisnu
Bench
What's funny is the Lakers did the same thing. The only difference is the Lakers had a large expiring contract to offer, while Chicago does not. I hope Bulls fans enjoyed their one year of P.J. Brown, because the Bulls' FO didn't make anything happen with that expiring deal. P.J. couldn't be brought out of retirement this season, and there's no guarantee that Memphis would've bought him out in a trade this year. The Grizzlies are actually making Aaron McKie report to the team, as some kind of player-coach.
Gargamel
Starter
I think this implies that Heisley's expectations had changed with one less year to deal Gasol. His quotes show clearly that Wallace was fibbing about trading Pau being his own call. Wacky things happen when owners want/have to trade their stars before it's too late (Kareem to LA, Barkley to Phx, Webber to DC, Shaq to Miami, etc). It's either a crap trade or the owner is painfully resistant like Donnie Walsh or Glenn Taylor.
Futuristic
G-League
It was all about the money. Business as usual.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
I don't get it. What changed money wise that told Kupchak to make this trade now while a month ago he didn't think of it?
Wicked
Prospect
Andrew Bynum's knee happened. The Lakers went into a "funk" immediately after the injury. I think Buss came out of hibernation and told Kupcake to make something happen, salary cap be damned. That is the difference between a big market team and a small market team. Buss has a LOT more wiggle room with profit/loss margins...his team just makes a hella lot more dough. Sad but true
Seriously, are you helping OJ find the "real" killer also??? It is way past time for Kings fans to move past things like that. It just adds fuel to Laker fans who look at Kings fans as a bunch of whiny homers.
I am sure Laker fans (older ones) had nightmares about the Celts for many many years. They exorcised their ghosts by finally beating the Celts. That is how the Kings need to handle things. It appears however, that the Maloofs are just not so interested in a good team anymore. Go rip me on that one, but it is my belief that they have ulterior motives.
Last edited by a moderator:
Glenn
Hall of Famer
The Kings are not the Celtics and may never get another chance. The only people who don't think something smelled in that game are Lakers' fans.
I'm over it except when an absolutely absurd trade falls into the lap of the Lakers I finally tip off into the insanity of conspiracy theories.
I don't give flying **** what Lakers' fans think of us. We live in different worlds. The Lakers are in a world of entitlement and the Kings in a world of welfare. What you call a "funk" is a successful year for us.
I'm over it except when an absolutely absurd trade falls into the lap of the Lakers I finally tip off into the insanity of conspiracy theories.
I don't give flying **** what Lakers' fans think of us. We live in different worlds. The Lakers are in a world of entitlement and the Kings in a world of welfare. What you call a "funk" is a successful year for us.
Last edited:
Gargamel
Starter
Gargamel
Starter
That SOB Tim Thomas had input too.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Hm, how come funk didn't bypass the filter the first time you wrote it?
Not sure. Maybe we should write to Jeremy.
kingsfan101
Starter
Agree. That's in fact, what I also wrote.
"Of course, since they already have Kobe, they don't need a high pick to land a superstar to build around."
- Status
Similar threads
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links