RealGM

Let's hope the warriors trade for someone good, get rid of POB , Pietrus... next years draft choice or what not, who cares
we need someone good to beat the lakers now.


Pau killed us with 40+ last time... imagine him and KOBE and ODOM and... ugh... BYNUM

That's why you can't be content with striving for the 8th seed...You have to always be thinking big..The lakers do...The warriors think tiny.

I count trading for wright as thinking big.

floppymoose wrote:I count trading for wright as thinking big.

Good point....All I want is 1 great big man coach.

floppymoose wrote:I count trading for wright as thinking big.

I don't... only thing it created was big $aving$...

Did we even want Wright? Did we just assume trading in front of Chicago would net us Yi?

But I'd stake anything that if the Bobs had a 10 mil expiring instead of the capspace, the Dubs pass and find a different deal that saves Cohan a net of nearly 11 mil this season (in addition to the lux tax penalties)

Leaving aside the luxury tax ramifications, to anyone who says, "couldn't the Warriors have offered a better deal than the Lakers?"... if the Warriors traded for Gasol, they'd of haved to sent out nearly $14 million is salaries. So who you gonna send? Baron? Stephen and Al? Pietrus, Barnes, Biedrins, Wright, and Kosta?

If only we still had Foyle's contract, and he were expiring, huh?

Sleepy51 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

IIRC, the discussion was bringing him here at the likely cost of Biedrins or Monta. I know Pau can play, but I don't particularly want to give up either of those guys for him.

I really don't mind that we didn't get him, but it's a huge problem that the Lakers got him at basically no cost. If we couldhave had him for Belli, Pietrus and two non-consecutive late 20's draft picks? Hell yes we should have made that deal. The problem was (and I believe Mullin probably felt the same way) that our "young talent" didn't fit together in a deal package without us overpaying.

Us building a deal around Monta or Beans to compete with a deal built around Crittendon would be a net victory for the Lakers.

That kind of thinking I sorta get. I don't know if I could have brought myself to trade Goose for him. Monta would have scared me, but I probably would have done it based on the "small for big" argument. I was more referring to all the arguments along the lines of, "he's a bad fit", "he won't be able to run", etc. etc. Those I thought were just silly. He's damned good, he's big, he rebounds, he blocks shots. He would have found a way to "fit" just fine."

The biggest issue I saw was our lack of big contracts to make a deal work for any quality player that doesn't fit into the trade exception. We probably could have started with Al and piled on young talent to get a legal deal, but given that Memphis was all about cutting cost, I think it is possible that taking back Al would have been a deal breaker, even though I don't think he's particularly overpaid.

But we're all in agreeement; nothing good can come of the Lakers getting him for cents on the dollar.

The problem though is that Lakers practically gave them nothing, they didn't have to give up Kobe, Bynum or even Odom, so why should we have to have parted with either Beans or Monta? Hecke they didn't even have to give up Walton or Fisher. What's up with that? Having said that, this would have been the equivalent deal:

Pietrus, POB (both "expiring", or low cost returnees), #1's, 08, 10. The problem is we really didn't have enough expirings to cover Gasol's salary. I got into a long debate with FGump a while back regarding the difference between a TPE and expiring, which one was better. I even took a poll, and barely TPE won out. I continued to argue with Gump because he could not give me a situation where the expiring would always be better. Well, we saw one in this case (although it isn't always the case, specifically when a team biggest motivator is to get under the lux tax).

What makes it better in this case? The big difference (and had he presented this to me back then, I likely would have backed off) is that with expirings, you are allowed to combine players, whereas with the TPE you cannot (bad rule imo) and is probably the biggest reason why we were unable to compete with the Lakers on this (really can't fault the FO on this). This also hurt us (more than I thought) on the KG deal. I don't recall during that prior discussion this point being highlighted. Because apparently the Grizzlies biggest motivation in trading Pau was to cut salary NEXT season, and our TPE was not big enough to absorb Gasol's salary by itself, we just didn't have the means necessary to get this done so unfortunately, we missed out on this one.

I was surprised how little the Lakers had to give up to get Gasol. He does make the Lakers a lot better. If the Warriors intend on being a lock for the playoffs, they need to make a deal.

Chris Porter's Hair wrote:-= original quote snipped =-


That kind of thinking I sorta get. I don't know if I could have brought myself to trade Goose for him. Monta would have scared me, but I probably would have done it based on the "small for big" argument. I was more referring to all the arguments along the lines of, "he's a bad fit", "he won't be able to run", etc. etc. Those I thought were just silly. He's damned good, he's big, he rebounds, he blocks shots. He would have found a way to "fit" just fine."

The biggest issue I saw was our lack of big contracts to make a deal work for any quality player that doesn't fit into the trade exception. We probably could have started with Al and piled on young talent to get a legal deal, but given that Memphis was all about cutting cost, I think it is possible that taking back Al would have been a deal breaker, even though I don't think he's particularly overpaid.

But we're all in agreeement; nothing good can come of the Lakers getting him for cents on the dollar.

Read an article today that the Grizz GM purely went shopping for the biggest expiring that was on the trade table. His analysis determined that Kwame was the clear choice. The rest of the deal was built around that. We were never really in the running.

turk3d wrote:The problem though is that Lakers practically gave them nothing, they didn't have to give up Kobe, Bynum or even Odom, so why should we have to have parted with either Beans or Monta? Hecke they didn't even have to give up Walton or Fisher. What's up with that? Having said that, this would have been the equivalent deal:

Pietrus, POB (both "expiring", or low cost returnees), #1's, 08, 10. The problem is we really didn't have enough expirings to cover Gasol's salary. I got into a long debate with FGump a while back regarding the difference between a TPE and expiring, which one was better. I even took a poll, and barely TPE won out. I continued to argue with Gump because he could not give me a situation where the expiring would always be better. Well, we saw one in this case (although it isn't always the case, specifically when a team biggest motivator is to get under the lux tax).

What makes it better in this case? The big difference (and had he presented this to me back then, I likely would have backed off) is that with expirings, you are allowed to combine players, whereas with the TPE you cannot (bad rule imo) and is probably the biggest reason why we were unable to compete with the Lakers on this (really can't fault the FO on this). This also hurt us (more than I thought) on the KG deal. I don't recall during that prior discussion this point being highlighted. Because apparently the Grizzlies biggest motivation in trading Pau was to cut salary NEXT season, and our TPE was not big enough to absorb Gasol's salary by itself, we just didn't have the means necessary to get this done so unfortunately, we missed out on this one.

Trading for Gasol meant losing Monta and /or Biedrins. Here's why. If we're not trading Biedrins or Monta to get Gasol, we'll need to resign them. Adding 15 million to next years cap will stop us from being able to stay under the luxery tax while still signing monta and beans to reasonable extentions. So even if we could have traded:

Pietrus, Barnes, and POB, with 2x #1 picks for Gasol, we would be strapped right up against the luxery tax this offseason, with 2 key players who want big money going into free agency.

Even if we just went with the QO for Biedrins (bad move IMO) and signed Monta to a deal starting at about 5 million (way less then i think he'll get), we'd be right around the luxury tax with only like 9 guys on the roster.

Baron, Gasol, Harrington, Jackson, Belinelli, Kosta, BW, Beans, Monta.

I think to trade for one of these guys that has a contract through next year, we'll need to add in Belinelli and Kosta to reduce our salary commitment for next season.

The only possible way it would work out would be if the FO were willing to use their bird rights to match whatever offers they got which means that Cohan would have to be willing to go into serious lux tax. Personally, although I'd like to see that for the right player, I don't believe that Gasol would be worth it although there are a few others out there who maybe would. I realize that the liklihood of this (Cohan willing to go into luxland) is noy very likely.

We never had a shot at Gasol... we could have w/some smart FO moves, but we never even tried.

Rewind back 6 months...

Brent Barry was clearly available... if the W's eat that contract, there's a 5.6 m expiring, that means we have a great spot up shooter and not a poor defender either..

J-Will from the Heat would have taken some convincing in the pre-season, but MIA was obviously not caring too much if he was gone. Pick up that POB option and we could have dealt him...

Mike Doleac for a TPE at any time is good for trading purposes..

Even with the new addition of players, MEM has 13 players on their roster... they also took back "Aaron McKie" and "Marc Gasol" who dont take up spots.

But could LAL trump a expirings + POB + Belinelli + 08/10 1sts offer? Not a chance.

Barry + Pietrus + POB + Beli + 08/10

for

Pau + Jacobsen

If FO was serious about a title move, that money gets spent on EXP for just that situation. With Nellie obviously looking towards the now and the FO obviously looking towards the savings... isn't that a giant red flag?

IMO that Gasol in Mulson's eye wasn't a smooth fit into Nellie's system and the Warriors were never that interested in him.

510Reggae wrote:We never had a shot at Gasol... we could have w/some smart FO moves, but we never even tried.

Rewind back 6 months...

Brent Barry was clearly available... if the W's eat that contract, there's a 5.6 m expiring, that means we have a great spot up shooter and not a poor defender either..

J-Will from the Heat would have taken some convincing in the pre-season, but MIA was obviously not caring too much if he was gone. Pick up that POB option and we could have dealt him...

Mike Doleac for a TPE at any time is good for trading purposes..

Even with the new addition of players, MEM has 13 players on their roster... they also took back "Aaron McKie" and "Marc Gasol" who dont take up spots.

But could LAL trump a expirings + POB + Belinelli + 08/10 1sts offer? Not a chance.

Barry + Pietrus + POB + Beli + 08/10

for

Pau + Jacobsen

If FO was serious about a title move, that money gets spent on EXP for just that situation. With Nellie obviously looking towards the now and the FO obviously looking towards the savings... isn't that a giant red flag?

I don't think the FO has the smarts to have figured that one out.

510Reggae wrote:We never had a shot at Gasol... we could have w/some smart FO moves, but we never even tried.

Rewind back 6 months...

Brent Barry was clearly available... if the W's eat that contract, there's a 5.6 m expiring, that means we have a great spot up shooter and not a poor defender either..

J-Will from the Heat would have taken some convincing in the pre-season, but MIA was obviously not caring too much if he was gone. Pick up that POB option and we could have dealt him...

Mike Doleac for a TPE at any time is good for trading purposes..

Even with the new addition of players, MEM has 13 players on their roster... they also took back "Aaron McKie" and "Marc Gasol" who dont take up spots.

But could LAL trump a expirings + POB + Belinelli + 08/10 1sts offer? Not a chance.

Barry + Pietrus + POB + Beli + 08/10

for

Pau + Jacobsen

If FO was serious about a title move, that money gets spent on EXP for just that situation. With Nellie obviously looking towards the now and the FO obviously looking towards the savings... isn't that a giant red flag?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Hindsight/retrospect is the greatest excuse for lack of foresight...

Who would have thought expirings would hold tons of value? A: ANYONE interested in a championship. If you have an EC, you have a leg up on every other major player in the trade market.

Its simple... either the FO/Coach are on the same page and our yanking the collective fanbase's chain, or they aren't on the same page and there's worse, unexplainable moves to come.

At this stage you have to hope its option #1. There was no win now mantra... maybe a "win enough" mantra...

In all fairness to Mullin, we have to keep in mind just how bad our contract situation was, just up to a year ago. Of course, this was a result of all the bad contract decisions made, some by Mullin, some by St. Jean. And putting it in perspective, I can't see them doing much than they did in order to get out of the hellish situation they were in.

They even managed to a get a rather large TPE (unfortunately not large enough so far), but getting any decent expirings were pretty much out of the question. We are in fact in a heckuva lot better shape than we could have been and have a pretty damn good team, considering where we were a little over a year ago. We tend to forget sometimes how bad of a situation we were in. The other factor to consider is how many other teams have the resources to do what the Lakers just did, where money is absolutely no object. They've basically decided that team heaven is worth cap hell.

510Reggae wrote:At this stage you have to hope its option #1. There was no win now mantra... maybe a "win enough" mantra...

Bingo,

and it's going to be that way until Cohan gets his sale price, so let's pull for "win enough" asap so we can get that cheap spoogebag outta here!

With the benefit of hindsight, I figure the best answer would have been to be the team dealing for Kurt Thomas with Phoenix. There was quite a nice bonus given to the team to take him off their hands, and he was a big ole expiring contract that fit within the trade exception.

I was close. Prior to them trading Kurt Thomas, I suggested we should consider doing so. What I missed was:
- I had no idea Phoenix would pay such a premium to unload him. If I'd known that, I would have said, "Hell yeah. Take that deal ASAP."
- At the time I thought that Thomas was a good use of the TE, but that we might be able to do better. After the Thomas trade, we unloaded all our big/bad contracts, and made it hard to do much of anything interesting with the TE. So using the TE for Thomas would have been better, since we could have bundled him with young guys by now.

Ah well.