Darko
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:18 pm
Do guys consider him a bad contract?
RealGM
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
Darko
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=784259
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:28 pm
He couldn't be further from a PG!!! If you rely on him as a PG, your team REALLY sucks.
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:25 pm
22 year old, 7 footer with 5 years NBA experience making ~7mill - nah, I wouldn't consider him a bad contract.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 1:38 am
tons of upside....................
hasn't developed yet
hasn't developed yet
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:06 am
The length of his contract is what makes it acceptable.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 3:21 am
Nothing like changing the topic and post so my response looks stupid...
original post asked if JCN was a true PG?
No... it's not a bad contract? anymore questions?
original post asked if JCN was a true PG?
No... it's not a bad contract? anymore questions?
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 6:18 pm
grizzleGM wrote:Nothing like changing the topic and post so my response looks stupid...
original post asked if JCN was a true PG?
No... it's not a bad contract? anymore questions?
Well, it looks like there are 2 questions to answer then.
1) JCN is not a pg. He's more of a hybrid sg that can play the point in limited minutes.
2) Darko is not a bad contract for the Grizzlies.
Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 8:16 pm
grizzleGM wrote:Nothing like changing the topic and post so my response looks stupid...
original post asked if JCN was a true PG?
No... it's not a bad contract? anymore questions?
LMAO THATS TOO FUNNY
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 1:58 pm
Would you guys do a trade of Mike Miller-Darko-Cardinal-for Anderson Varejao-Wally-Joe Smith-two 09 2nd rnd picks?
23.5 million in expiring contracts.
23.5 million in expiring contracts.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:12 pm
I don't think the Grizzlies would. Here's why - 1) Darko was a signing of the current regime. There's not ready to give up on him yet. It's a short term deal, and not terribly bad for his production. 2) The Grizz could have traded Miller for expiring contracts already. The word is that they don't want to do this. 3) Although BC has a horrible contract, he's not a bad locker room guy and gives all he has when healthy. Even though it would be great to get rid of his deal, they don't have to just dump it for anything - at least anything that doesn't make really good sense.
So, to sum it up, although the Grizz liked Anderson, they probably don't like him enough for that offer. They aren't moving MM for expirings. 2nd round picks are (95% of the time) crap. Just don't see a deal here.
HOWEVER, I do think that Cleveland and Memphis have pieces that would work for each other, it would just be a matter of matching them up and where Memphis ends up in this draft.
So, to sum it up, although the Grizz liked Anderson, they probably don't like him enough for that offer. They aren't moving MM for expirings. 2nd round picks are (95% of the time) crap. Just don't see a deal here.
HOWEVER, I do think that Cleveland and Memphis have pieces that would work for each other, it would just be a matter of matching them up and where Memphis ends up in this draft.
Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 2:34 pm
Thanks for the in depth response,and I thought about offering the Cavs 2010 1rst, 2009 2nd instead, and either D.Jones or E.Snow, who are also expiring. Same package,but a 1rst a 2nd and whatever combo of players.
Posted: Wed Apr 30, 2008 2:13 pm
For me it's a bad contract. Regardless of the length.
If Darko's isn't bad than neither is Cardinal's (they're the same length).
Talentwise, when healthy they are close (that's how terrible Darko is).
The only thing that makes Darko's contract not as bad for Memphis is that Darko actually gets minutes because we don't have any other centers.
If Cardinal were on a team where he was the #1 backup at PF, then his contract wouldn't look AS bad.
But we have Warrick...and prior to the trade Gasol.
So yes..in my opinion...Darko's contract is bad.
If he were on the Lakers behind Gasol and Bynum it would be considered a bad contract for the Lakers.
But because he's the only big man we have, it's not looked at as bad so much but in itself...the contract is.
We can shed his upside label. There clearly is very little.
If Darko's isn't bad than neither is Cardinal's (they're the same length).
Talentwise, when healthy they are close (that's how terrible Darko is).
The only thing that makes Darko's contract not as bad for Memphis is that Darko actually gets minutes because we don't have any other centers.
If Cardinal were on a team where he was the #1 backup at PF, then his contract wouldn't look AS bad.
But we have Warrick...and prior to the trade Gasol.
So yes..in my opinion...Darko's contract is bad.
If he were on the Lakers behind Gasol and Bynum it would be considered a bad contract for the Lakers.
But because he's the only big man we have, it's not looked at as bad so much but in itself...the contract is.
We can shed his upside label. There clearly is very little.
Posted: Sat May 3, 2008 1:13 am
I read the thread and was about to post something very similar to PMI.
Darko may not be a bad contract on other teams (though I think it would be a stretch for anyone to say it was a "good" contract). But I think he is not a good contract for the Grizzlies, for many of the reasons listed above. The bottom-line for me is that I don't think he provides $7 mil worth of additional value to Memphis. Hopefully MEM can get a big man in the draft/trade that would be a better use of the minutes and money.
Darko may not be a bad contract on other teams (though I think it would be a stretch for anyone to say it was a "good" contract). But I think he is not a good contract for the Grizzlies, for many of the reasons listed above. The bottom-line for me is that I don't think he provides $7 mil worth of additional value to Memphis. Hopefully MEM can get a big man in the draft/trade that would be a better use of the minutes and money.