LeBron to Miami...

[primetime]

Are you paying attention to your own point Cy? Do you even know what a one sided trade is? In a one sided trade, one team makes a bad move and does not improve at all. In fact, they go to obscurity. Did Memphis do that, or did Minnesota do that?

In fact, there never really is an "equal value" trade. Teams try to get close. You also said the TWolves traded for the best player on their (Boston's) team. Al Jefferson is a solid player, but he has done what? Boston's franchise was doing WHAT with Al Jefferson? Boston gets KG, and ends up in the NBA Finals 2 out of 3 years. The TWolves? Bottom of the standings and not looking good at all.

Lakers trade for Memphis' best player, Pau Gasol. Yet, Memphis is not a horrible team. They are rising in large help with the trade and draft picks. Marc Goasol is improving every year, they are picking up key pieces and are doing better. How can you say it is a one sided trade? Looks like it destroy Memphis' franchise after all. Plus, Gasol was going to bail first chance he got when his contract expired. Stop having so much Laker hatred that you lose sight of what happened. So again, who got the better deal? Memphis or Minnesota?

 

[Cy/MiG]

Are you paying attention to your own point Cy? Do you even know what a one sided trade is? In a one sided trade, one team makes a bad move and does not improve at all. In fact, they go to obscurity. Did Memphis do that, or did Minnesota do that?

A one sided trade can also be a trade in which the team who receives the better player benefits far more than the team which gives up the player.

Memphis lost 58 and 60 games after trading Gasol.

LA made three straight titles and won two, in large part because of Gasol (which is UNDENIABLE because the Lakers lost in the first round in the two years prior to them acquiring Gasol).

If you undo the trades, I'd guess that the T-Wolves would still lose 50 or more games and the Celts would still win 45 or more games (because they would still have Rondo-Ray-PP-Jeff). Boston probably would not have won a title, perhaps not even made one.

Undo the Gasol trade and the Grizzlies would probably have gotten closer to a playoff spot this year (and would be in position to make the playoffs this year) while sincerely I doubt the Lakers would have made the last three titles, much less won two.

In fact, there never really is an "equal value" trade. Teams try to get close. You also said the TWolves traded for the best player on their (Boston's) team. Al Jefferson is a solid player, but he has done what? Boston's franchise was doing WHAT with Al Jefferson? Boston gets KG, and ends up in the NBA Finals 2 out of 3 years. The TWolves? Bottom of the standings and not looking good at all.

I'll repeat: The Lakers got Gasol and went to three straight finals and won two (and the Grizzlies lost 60 and 58 games after trading Gasol, so stop acting like they've been 'competitive' even after trading him).

Nobody denies that the KG trade is or was bad. But you are trying to deny that the Gasol trade was, which is so false I can't begin to explain (because you cannot accept it)...

But I will try once more... For instance:

Lakers trade for Memphis' best player, Pau Gasol. Yet, Memphis is not a horrible team. They are rising in large help with the trade and draft picks.

That is such a false statement.

The Grizzlies are only semi-competitive (they finally won 40 games for the first time in four years) because they drafted Rudy Gay and OJ Mayo and traded for Zach Randolph.

The Pau Gasol trade did not help them. Unless you consider trading an established big man for his younger undeveloped brother help.

And if the Grizzlies were hell-bent on trading Pau, the Bulls would have given up Ty Thomas (or Joakim Noah), Luol Deng and more to get him---FAR MORE than what L.A. gave them.

Marc Goasol is improving every year, they are picking up key pieces and are doing better.

Al Jefferson is also an improving player. In fact, he is the best player on Minnesota. Before he hurt him ACL he was a 21-11 player, one of the best bigs in the league (top 5). Even post injury he averaged 17-9 in a whole season.

Marc Gasol is maybe the fourth best player on the Grizzlies.

How can you say it is a one sided trade? Looks like it destroy Memphis' franchise after all. Plus, Gasol was going to bail first chance he got when his contract expired.

It's a one sided trade because the Grizzlies lost 58 games for two years without Gasol while the Lakers have been to three straight titles. One team has benefitted far more than the other, having taken their best player for two late draft picks and a decent big man.

So I'll repeat: The Grizzlies lost 58 and 60 games after trading Pau Gasol.

And if they were afraid of him leaving town then they could have traded him to Chi-town for a better return.

Stop having so much Laker hatred that you lose sight of what happened.

I admit I am not fond of the Lakers, but that is not affecting my judgement of the Gasol trade.

Only Lakers homers defend that trade.

Any objective fan knows it was highway robbery. Just like the KG deal.

So again, who got the better deal? Memphis or Minnesota?

Neither was better, they were both horrible.

You're the one defending your beloved Lakers by making the ridiculous argument that the Gasol trade was fair.

 

[primetime]

*sigh* I have never said the trade was "equal". However, it was not a "highway robbery" deal as so many people like to point out. People think of the trade as "Kwame Brown for Pau Gasol". It wasn't. The point (which is over your head) of my argument is that Memphis DID get something out of the trade. They wind up with two first round draft picks and a rapidly improving Marc Gasol. Their franchise is not falling apart. If it was a "highway robbery deal", then the Grizzlies would still be at the bottom of the pile.

The highway robbery deal was the KG trade. Dude, Boston unloaded like 7 guys. Where are those guys now? What is Minnesota's record? What have they done with their trade?

You like pointing out that Memphis lost 60 and 58 games in a season after the Gasol trade. What was their won/loss record in the 06-07 season? What was their record during the 07-08 up until the Gasol trade in February? Hell, what was the Grizzlies record during Gasol's first 2 years with the Grizzlies? They made the playoffs 3 times, but got swept in all of them. After their last playoff appearance in 05, why did they head immediately south? Gasol was still there during this process.

If you undo the trades, Boston would STILL BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PILE. Remember Danny Ainge's face when they didn't get the #1 pick in the lottery? He looked like he lost his best friend. He had Al Jefferson didn't he? The Celtics STILL WOULD HAVE SUCKED. Don't get it twisted, Rondo got better because of Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and KG being on the team. He would have been a decent player, but he improved vastly considering who was on his team.

Was the Gasol trade equal? No. Of course not. I won't say that I wasn't surprised by it. But I do wonder why people think that was a steal when the Celtics got away with a lot more. Then again, there is a reason why the Lakers and Celtics are the two most successful franchises in NBA history. You reek of jealousy there Cy. Don't worry though. The Thunder will definitely be contenders next year....

Since you like pointing out horrible trades, can you please name a trade where it was "equal"?

Now back to this thread. Lebron will never live this down. He can no longer go back "home" and be welcomed. If he does not end up with a championship, this moment in time will be his everlasting legacy...

 

[Lonestar327]

And I personally am so sick of hearing how "the Lakers robbed the Grizzlies"

Let me get this straight, Pau Gasol was a okay player when he was on the Grizzlies, then he gets traded to the Lakers and all of a sudden he's the greatest player that has ever lived?

I guess playing for the Lakers automatcally qualifies you for the Hall of Fame.

 

[Cy/MiG]

*sigh* I have never said the trade was "equal".

No, you just attempt to say that KG to Boston was somehow a worse deal, when both trades were equally horrendous.

However, it was not a "highway robbery" deal as so many people like to point out. People think of the trade as "Kwame Brown for Pau Gasol". It wasn't. The point (which is over your head) of my argument is that Memphis DID get something out of the trade. They wind up with two first round draft picks and a rapidly improving Marc Gasol. Their franchise is not falling apart. If it was a "highway robbery deal", then the Grizzlies would still be at the bottom of the pile.

The first round picks the Grizz got are bench players. It took Marc Gasol two years to develop.

Say what you will, but at least Jefferson was an instant impact player for the Wolves (in fact, the only good player on their team until they drafted Love). Yet you claimed that the Wolves 'got nothing' out of the deal...

Meanwhile the Celts and Lakers immediately became the two best teams in the league.

Both deals reek, neither more than the other.

The highway robbery deal was the KG trade. Dude, Boston unloaded like 7 guys. Where are those guys now? What is Minnesota's record? What have they done with their trade?

You like pointing out that Memphis lost 60 and 58 games in a season after the Gasol trade. What was their won/loss record in the 06-07 season? What was their record during the 07-08 up until the Gasol trade in February? Hell, what was the Grizzlies record during Gasol's first 2 years with the Grizzlies? They made the playoffs 3 times, but got swept in all of them. After their last playoff appearance in 05, why did they head immediately south? Gasol was still there during this process.

If you undo the trades, Boston would STILL BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PILE.

Undo the KG and the Celts still have PP-Ray-Rondo-AJ-Perkins, which should be good enough to win 45 games a year and contend for the Conf. finals out East. They wouldn't win a title, but they'd still compete.

Undo the Gasol trade and Memphis is just as good, if not better and the Lakers have two less titles. The Lakers would still be good for 50 wins, but without a #2 option for Kobe, I doubt they breeze through the West three straight years.

Remember Danny Ainge's face when they didn't get the #1 pick in the lottery? He looked like he lost his best friend. He had Al Jefferson didn't he? The Celtics STILL WOULD HAVE SUCKED. Don't get it twisted, Rondo got better because of Ray Allen, Paul Pierce and KG being on the team. He would have been a decent player, but he improved vastly considering who was on his team.

Allen was acquired a month BEFORE KG. The Celts did enough to be competitive even without KG. Not win a title competitive, but be competitive.

I know you're required to hate Boston as an LA fan, but Boston was good enough to make the playoffs without KG.

Was the Gasol trade equal? No. Of course not. I won't say that I wasn't surprised by it. But I do wonder why people think that was a steal when the Celtics got away with a lot more. Then again, there is a reason why the Lakers and Celtics are the two most successful franchises in NBA history.

You reek of jealousy there Cy. Don't worry though. The Thunder will definitely be contenders next year....

🙄

Since you like pointing out horrible trades, can you please name a trade where it was "equal"?

I can certainly name trades which weren't as horrible as KG or Gasol for a pu pu platter, yes.

The Ray Allen trade worked out well for the Sonics, both the trade where they acquired him and got rid of him.

Alot of draft pick swaps are even (OJ Mayo for Kevin Love, Sheed for McDyess).

Jerry Stackhouse for Rip Hamilton.

The Shaq to the Heat trade was uneven, but not terrible (the Lakers got Odom, Butler and Farmar out of it).

Joe Johnson to the Hawks was eneven, but only because the notoriously cheap Suns owner was dumb enough to trade Rondo away for nothing.

Now back to this thread. Lebron will never live this down. He can no longer go back "home" and be welcomed. If he does not end up with a championship, this moment in time will be his everlasting legacy...

If he does win titles, which appears likely, it won't matter.

 

[primetime]

Yes, the KG deal was a worse deal. The Wolves have done nothing since that trade. You can't say the same about the Grizzlies. They have improved. Have the Twolves? In fact, they are about to trade Al Jefferson to the Utah Jazz. Yeah, that trade was so much better...

You also keep forgetting the fact that before we got Gasol, Kobe "I just threw a tantrum" Bryant at that time said "we are a championship team with Bynum". Then Bynum got hurt, that's what prompted the trade. Gasol wasn't doing anything in Memphis. He was not performing like he is performing now. His game improved since he became a Laker. We would not be talking about Gasol now if he stayed in Memphis.

The Celtics did not do enough before KG. KG made that team more defensive minded and brought the swagger they needed. With KG there, he makes their frontcourt dominant. You saw what happened when KG got hurt. Then again, they were in the East, so anything's possible.

By the way, Farmar did not come to the Lakers via trade. The Lakers drafted him. The Lakers got Caron Butler, Odom and Brian Grant.

Bottom line is, the Grizzlies were already on their way down the toilet, even when Gasol was there. They wouldn't trade away Gasol if he was doing then what he is doing now. Stop hating so much and pay attention to the details. The real travesty was the KG trade. A highway robbery trade decimates the other team. Obviously, Memphis isn't quite decimated are they?

 

[Cy/MiG]

Yes, the KG deal was a worse deal. The Wolves have done nothing since that trade.

The Wolves did nothing BEFORE the trade either.

You point out how the Grizz weren't so good even with Gasol, well newsflash:

The Wolves lost 49 and 50 games in the two years before trading KG.

They weren't winning WITH him, which is why they unloaded him. The trade to Boston also benefitted them because by trading KG to Boston they were able to get their 2009 1st round pick back, which turned out to be the blown Rubio pick (made by their incompetent GM Kahn).

Like it or not, the KG trade was a better 'instant' return that what the Lakers gave the Grizzlies.

The Wolves got a legit 4/5 Forward/Center in Al Jefferson and a nearly guaranteed top-5 pick in 2009 (since it was their pick they were getting back from the terrible Ricky Davis trade).

All the Lakers gave the Grizz was cap space (Kwame's expiring contract), a rookie PG (Crittenton) who was not needed because the Grizzlies had Lowry and Conley, two late-round picks which are now just bench players and the rookie (2nd round pick) Marc Gasol who just so happened to turn into a decent player.

Nothing LA gave up was worth anything at the time of the trade (and is still not worth much); at least Boston gave up a former top-pick in Jefferson and a future top-pick in 2009.

That aside, both trades were equally terrible. I want to emphasize this since you can't seem to understand my position on it and seem intent on claiming the trade which helped your team was 'not as bad' (not that I'm surprised...).

You can't say the same about the Grizzlies. They have improved. Have the Twolves? In fact, they are about to trade Al Jefferson to the Utah Jazz. Yeah, that trade was so much better...

*sigh*

I said both trades were equally terrible about 10 times. You're the one trying to say one is better than the other---in fact, the very trade which helped your team.

I believe the word for that is BIAS.

You also keep forgetting the fact that before we got Gasol, Kobe "I just threw a tantrum" Bryant at that time said "we are a championship team with Bynum". Then Bynum got hurt, that's what prompted the trade. Gasol wasn't doing anything in Memphis. He was not performing like he is performing now. His game improved since he became a Laker. We would not be talking about Gasol now if he stayed in Memphis.

Not true. Please check the facts:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gasolpa01.html

His game is still as good as it always ways, but now he has a legit superstar (Kobe) to compliment him. He never had that in Memphis.

In fact, Gasol averaged 20 PPG in Memphis and has only averaged 18-19 PPG in LA. He averaged more TRB per game in Memphis until just this last year, too. His assist numbers have not changed one way or the other.

Has he 'gotten better'? Technically no, he's always been this good only now he just has better TEAMMATES.

By the way, Farmar did not come to the Lakers via trade. The Lakers drafted him. The Lakers got Caron Butler, Odom and Brian Grant.

In the Shaq deal, the Heat also included a draft pick... the pick became Jordan Farmar:

July 14, 2004: Miami Heat traded Caron Butler, with Brian Grant, Lamar Odom, a 2006 1st round draft pick (Jordan Farmar) and a 2007 2nd round draft pick (Renaldas Seibutis) to the Los Angeles Lakers for Shaquille O'Neal.

Bottom line is, the Grizzlies were already on their way down the toilet, even when Gasol was there.

The Wolves were already in the toilet, even when KG was there. Does that somehow justify the deal or make it better in any way?

I'll repeat once more: Both the KG and Gasol deals were some of the worst in recent history (please excuse the hyperbole, but it's true) and neither is worse than the other; they both just plain reek.

They wouldn't trade away Gasol if he was doing then what he is doing now.

I assume the above is a joke, because you can't possibly believe that Pau Gasol, a former third overall pick who averaged nearly 20-9-4 & 50% FG% in 35 MPG in his 6 1/2 years in Memphis, was traded because he 'wasn't doing what he is now' (in fact, the comedic irony is off the charts because Gasol WAS as good then as now, which is why so many people, including myself, understand why the trade w/ the Lakers was so God-awful).

You simply cannot be so foolish... and if you are then I don't know what else to say... Other than:

You truly are nothing but a Lakers fan.

Stop hating so much and pay attention to the details.

Stop hating? Like when you say...

Yes, the KG deal was a worse deal...
The real travesty was the KG trade.

???

A highway robbery trade decimates the other team. Obviously, Memphis isn't quite decimated are they?

A highway robbery trade can also be a trade in which one team benefits far and above another.

Memphis has only just begun to recover, IN SPITE of the Gasol trade, not BECAUSE of. The Lakers meanwhile have been the best team in the league for three years.

The same applies for the KG trade; the Wolves are terrible and the Celts a top-3 team.

So again, both trades were equally dreadful. Both the Celtics and Lakers robbed the teams they got a really, really, really good player from.

But if you need to tell yourself that the KG trade was worse to reinforce your unbelievable Lakers superfandom, go right ahead.

Personally, I think you're better off admitting both trades were terrible and then flaunting your Lakers championships. It'd be justifiably pompous and more importantly, it would be honest.

v/r

 

[primetime]

Really Cy, you need to take a deep breath and really pay attention. Was the Laker trade one of the most equal deals ever? No. However, the KG deal was worse. Seriously, what did Minnesota get out of that deal? Al Jefferson? Al is doing so well, they're going to trade him to Utah. Lakers get Gasol, and he turns out the best years of his career.

When Gasol was in Memphis, he was a pretty good player, but couldn't do much against the "big boys". Don't believe me? Then explain why he was called "Gasoft" when he played for the Lakers until this past season. Still don't believe me? How many playoff games did he win in Memphis. Memphis already had lost 60 games the season BEFORE he was traded, they were enroute to another horrible season up until February 08 the following season. You make it seem like Memphis was doing quite well for themselves at the point of the trade. They weren't, otherwise why would they trade Gasol? The owner was looking to dump salary so he can START OVER. That's why he took Kwame Brown. Kwame's contract was expiring. But he also ask for two draft picks in the first round and Javaris Crittendon had an upside. On top of that, they get Marc Gasol who is improving rapidly. In hindsight, that trade was not as horrific as people thought it was. Equal trade? No. But it definitely was better than the KG trade.

Honestly, in the NBA, if you are a GM, wouldn't you like to have two first round picks? What you do with them is your business, but I think all NBA GMs would LOVE to have two first round picks, two different years.

You are only saying it was a bad trade of equal proportions because you hate the Lakers and Celtics. Memphis did much better with the aftermath of their trade than Minnesota. The records don't lie. Minnesota has tumbled into the abyss while Memphis is doing well. If Al was such a great player for the Celtics, explain to me why he was trade bait, and why is he being traded AGAIN. They can't build around this guy?

 

[Cy/MiG]

Really Cy, you need to take a deep breath and really pay attention. Was the Laker trade one of the most equal deals ever? No. However, the KG deal was worse. Seriously, what did Minnesota get out of that deal? Al Jefferson? Al is doing so well, they're going to trade him to Utah. Lakers get Gasol, and he turns out the best years of his career.

Best years of his career?

Pau Gasol hasn't vastly improved overall. In LA he's scoring and blocking less, rebounding more and has no change in assists.

His best statistical years are in 02-03 and 05-06 w/ Memphis. His rookie year was phenomenal, too.

Please stop using hyperbole.

When Gasol was in Memphis, he was a pretty good player, but couldn't do much against the "big boys". Don't believe me? Then explain why he was called "Gasoft" when he played for the Lakers until this past season. Still don't believe me? How many playoff games did he win in Memphis. Memphis already had lost 60 games the season BEFORE he was traded, they were enroute to another horrible season up until February 08 the following season. You make it seem like Memphis was doing quite well for themselves at the point of the trade.

No, I make it seem like Gasol was an established player worth more than what the Lakers gave up for him. If you can quote where I said Memphis was doing great with Gasol, go ahead.

They weren't, otherwise why would they trade Gasol?

Because Chris Wallace is a terrible GM.

The owner was looking to dump salary so he can START OVER. That's why he took Kwame Brown. Kwame's contract was expiring. But he also ask for two draft picks in the first round and Javaris Crittendon had an upside. On top of that, they get Marc Gasol who is improving rapidly. In hindsight, that trade was not as horrific as people thought it was. Equal trade? No. But it definitely was better than the KG trade.

Based on what?

Is Marc Gasol better than Al Jefferson?

Were the draft picks that the Grizzlies received higher picks and/or turn into better players than what the Wolves got? (Would you rather have Darrell Arthur and Greivis Vasquez or Johnny Flynn and Wayne Ellington)?

Were any of the other players involved in the deal better/worse than the rest of the crap Minny got?

No, no and hell no.

Honestly, in the NBA, if you are a GM, wouldn't you like to have two first round picks? What you do with them is your business, but I think all NBA GMs would LOVE to have two first round picks, two different years.

As a GM, I would want first round picks, but HIGH ones, not ones from the Lakers, which are guaranteed to be one of the last first round picks (since they'll make the finals)

In a related story, guess what? The Wolves also got two first round picks. One of them turned into the #5 overall pick, much higher than any of the picks that Memphis got (#28 in 08 and #28 in 10).

Hmm...

Maybe you should pay attention and take a deep breath?

You are only saying it was a bad trade of equal proportions because you hate the Lakers and Celtics. Memphis did much better with the aftermath of their trade than Minnesota. The records don't lie. Minnesota has tumbled into the abyss while Memphis is doing well. If Al was such a great player for the Celtics, explain to me why he was trade bait, and why is he being traded AGAIN. They can't build around this guy?

I'm saying they were equally bad trades because in my objective opinion they were. Both trades hurt the team giving up the established superstar.

Memphis is not doing well because of the Gasol deal. They're doing well because they had drafted Rudy Gay in 06, drafted OJ Mayo in 08 and traded for Zach Randolph.

Sure Marc Gasol has helped Memphis more than AI did, but otherwise he is not responsible for the Grizzlies finally winning 40 games for the first time since they traded Pau Gasol.

Minnesota has tumbled into the abyss...

This is laughable.

Since you ignored me when I said it the first time, I'll show you again:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MIN/

The Wolves lost 49 and 50 games in the two years BEFORE they traded Garnett. They were already in the abyss (especially since they had no 2009 first rounder---until they traded KG to Boston).

Just like how you point out that the Grizz traded Gasol to 'start over', that's EXACTLY what Minnesota was doing.

Can you seriously not see this?

The reason why both trades were equally horrible is because :

While the Wolves got two good players in Al Jeff and Jonny Flynn out of the deal, they still stink
While the Grizz got one good (above average) player in Marc Gasol, they're average at best (they just won 40 games for the first time since 05-06)

 

[primetime]

Ah, you know why I like debating you Cy? Because you try hard. I will give you credit.

Seriously, are you REALLY going to debate the fact that Gasol's Laker years are not as good as his Memphis years? First, about his stats. Let's see. He was the centerpiece in Memphis. He is the 2nd option with the Lakers. That would explain his scoring dip, considering he is playing with Kobe Bryant. Ah, his rebounds are down. Maybe because he's playing with another 7 footer, and another guy who's 6'10" (Odom). Yeah, that would explain the dip in rebounds.

Gasol was called soft while he was in Memphis. Comes to LA, now the soft label is gone. Seriously my man, I think anyone who doesn't hate the Lakers will admit Gasol's tenure with the Lakers are the best years he's had in his career.

You are looking at the two trades with a "born animosity" with the Lakers and Celtics. Look at the trades without the hatred. Compare the two trades. Do not compare them with any other trades. Just one trade versus another. You can't possibly say the trades were equal. The KG trade damaged Minnesota a LOT more than the Gasol trade did to Memphis. You like pointing out that when Gasol left, they lost 58 and 60 games. They lost 60 games the season BEFORE HE LEFT. They were enroute to another 50+ loss season the SAME year he was traded. What was the difference? Memphis was going nowhere with Gasol at that time. What did KG mean to Minnesota? He was the franchise. He got them to the WCF in 04. When they got Al Jefferson and 6 other stiffs, what happened to the Wolves? Are they moving in the right direction at all? They just traded Jefferson to the Jazz. So what DID they get out of the trade?

At least with Memphis, Marc Gasol is improving and will become a solid player. Ask any NBA GM and they will tell you they would LOVE two first round picks. Typically, teams only get 2 picks a year. Memphis gained another first round pick. Who gives a damn where it fell, you got a SECOND pick. What you do with it is your business. Hypothetically, let's say Memphis pickup starters with the second pick. Makes that trade look a lot better huh?

Make sure you understand what I am trying to get across. I did not say the Gasol trade made Memphis better, I said the trade did not hurt them as much because they are on the upswing. Notice the difference? I am not saying the trade is why Memphis is going to be a playoff team one day, I am saying the trade did not destroy their team and they actually got SOMETHING from it. They were nearly a .500 team in the WEST. That is impressive considering they play in the West.

But let's look at the Wolves. They made a trade, and got what out of it? The "main guy" is now no longer on their team. They are looking at years of hell, while the Grizzlies are improving. So, who really got stiffed in the trades? Memphis or Minnesota?

Understand the difference? Probably not....