RealGM

He has done a 180 on this deal. To bad he hired wallace. It's only a matter of time beofre that cape space from the Pau deal is filled with junk players who all play the same postions. To bad for MEM. Thank god we don't have GM"S like that. Also i'm glad to see an owner call the lottery a joke.

QFT

What an idiot. People like this should not be owners of a pro sports team.

I still think there is something shady here...it's one thing to see a trade that looks good turn bad after (for instance, the McHale/Parish for Joe Barry Carroll draft pick....no one knew Carroll would suck). But this? It's like if the Bulls traded Michael Jordan to the Celtics for Greg Kite and Jerry Sichting back in the day. And people would be shocked it would be a bad trade?

Give me a break, not buying it.

Michael Heisley starts to ask, well, who is ripping Minnesota for the Kevin Garnett trade?

How about Seattle and Ray Allen?

Why would anyone rip Minnesota? Didn't they get a 20/10 young stud in Al Jefferson for Garnett?

And Didn't Seattle get the #5 pick in the draft, plus two good shooters?

The Celtics gave up more value for the older Ray Allen than the Lakers gave up for Gasol.

The one thing that I do feel bad for him about is the ridiculous nature of the NBA draft lottery. The fact that there is a lottery at all is absurd. Clearly the worst teams in the NBA should get an opportunity to get better. Memphis has been the worst franchise in the NBA for years and has never sniffed the top pick in the draft. In a superstar dominated league, it is ridiculous to leave who gets the #1 pick up to pure chance.

Other than that, this guy sounds like a total moron. I suppose that's not surprising though, he did appoint Chris Wallace as the GM.

Why no one is ripping Minnesota over the Garnett deal:

Al Jefferson - 82 games started - 21 ppg, 11 rpg
Ryan Gomes - 74 games started - 13 ppg, 6 rpg
Sebastian Telfair - 51 games started - 9 ppg, 6 ast

Draft pick still to come.

Why no one is ripping Seattle over the Ray Allen deal:

Jeff Green - 52 games started - 11 ppg, 5 rpg
Delonte West - 31 games started - 8 ppg, 4 ast (as starter: 10, 5)
Wally Szczerbiak - 2 games started, 75 played - 12 ppg, 3 rpg

Both West and Wally started for Cleveland through two rounds of playoffs, including a 7-game series against the Celtics.

Why everyone should rip Memphis:

Kwame Brown - 38 games played, 15 in Memphis with one start - 5 ppg, 5 rpg
Jarvis Crittenton - 50 games, 28 in Memphis - 6 ppg, 1 ast
Aaron McKie - Waived
Marc Gasol - Rights
28th pick in 2008, likely 28-30th pick in 2010

Both Seattle and Memphis got value in their deals -- and the Celtics gave up value -- while Los Angeles got a 20-10 player for two late first rounders, empty suits and career roleplayers.

spf,

those are facts. laker fans cant deal with facts.

Any person who considers the Garnett trade to be similar to the Gasol trade in any way, shape or form, is a complete idiot.

Gasol was straight up given to the Lakers for basically nothing. I think we can all agree on this.

The Wolves, however, got many players and draft picks in return, namely Al Jefferson. Jefferson averaged more points and rebounds per game than Garnett did, and is only 23! Also, he was ranked 12th in PER, ahead of...Pau Gasol!

Gomes3PC wrote:The one thing that I do feel bad for him about is the ridiculous nature of the NBA draft lottery. The fact that there is a lottery at all is absurd. Clearly the worst teams in the NBA should get an opportunity to get better. Memphis has been the worst franchise in the NBA for years and has never sniffed the top pick in the draft. In a superstar dominated league, it is ridiculous to leave who gets the #1 pick up to pure chance.

Other than that, this guy sounds like a total moron. I suppose that's not surprising though, he did appoint Chris Wallace as the GM.

The lottery system is fine. Teams shouldn't be blindly rewarded for having the worst record in the league. If you thought there was a tank-fest last year, imagine what would've happened if the worst record was guaranteed Oden or Durant. It would've been ridiculous. And I don't feel bad for the guy because he missed out on the #1 pick. We've already seen what he does with franchise players. He trades them away for cap space. Is that a franchise that should be rewarded?

And anyone that ever tries to compare the Gasol trade to the KG or Allen trades shows their complete ingnorance right there. The Wolves got a young stud PF in Big Al, and the Sonics got the #5 pick in the draft. What did the Grizzlies get?? Cap space, a 3rd string point guard, and a couple 1sts in the 25-30 range. Well done.

spf211 wrote:Why no one is ripping Minnesota over the Garnett deal:

Al Jefferson - 82 games started - 21 ppg, 11 rpg
Ryan Gomes - 74 games started - 13 ppg, 6 rpg
Sebastian Telfair - 51 games started - 9 ppg, 6 ast

Draft pick still to come.

Why no one is ripping Seattle over the Ray Allen deal:

Jeff Green - 52 games started - 11 ppg, 5 rpg
Delonte West - 31 games started - 8 ppg, 4 ast (as starter: 10, 5)
Wally Szczerbiak - 2 games started, 75 played - 12 ppg, 3 rpg

Both West and Wally started for Cleveland through two rounds of playoffs, including a 7-game series against the Celtics.

Why everyone should rip Memphis:

Kwame Brown - 38 games played, 15 in Memphis with one start - 5 ppg, 5 rpg
Jarvis Crittenton - 50 games, 28 in Memphis - 6 ppg, 1 ast
Aaron McKie - Waived
Marc Gasol - Rights
28th pick in 2008, likely 28-30th pick in 2010

Both Seattle and Memphis got value in their deals -- and the Celtics gave up value -- while Los Angeles got a 20-10 player for two late first rounders, empty suits and career roleplayers.

FTW.

The Lottery is actually genius. Since the NBA is a one player dominated league, GM's and coaches alike would be very inclined to lose games on purpose to snag the number 1 pick.

Think about last season. Gomes and others openly admitted to at least not minding losing games on purpose in hopes of landing Greg Oden. That was with only a chance at getting him. Could you imagine if the worst team in the league was guaranteed the number 1 pick? You'd have several teams last season, Celtics included, losing games on purpose to get that pick. It's just not a viable option for the league. You shouldn't reward losing that much. I do agree that it helps balance out the league, but at what cost. The Grizzlies did get unlucky, but if they had drafted well and traded well, they would not be in their position. They had the 2nd pick in Swift, drafted Francis only to deal him (to their defense he demanded a deal, but did note about his opposition to playing in Vancouver...knowing this Vancouver could have shopped the pick before the draft and recieved much more than Michael Dickerson and spare parts from Houston), Bryant Reeves etc etc.

It really gets me every time I read something where they say Minnesota got "nothing". The relationship between KG and ownership had deteriorated so he was getting moved. They get Jefferson a 21/11 player almost 10 years younger than KG. Two first round picks. A good rotation player in Gomes. And the Theo contract.

My question is:

Why is Jefferson's 21/11 considered nothing by many observers?

Is it because he is not a high flyer (like D Howard)
Is it because he was picked 15th in the first round and was not a sure impact player?

I don't get it, help me out here?

well then the worst team 3 teams should have a much greater chance of landing the top pick!!

CelticsWhat! wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



The lottery system is fine. Teams shouldn't be blindly rewarded for having the worst record in the league. If you thought there was a tank-fest last year, imagine what would've happened if the worst record was guaranteed Oden or Durant. It would've been ridiculous. And I don't feel bad for the guy because he missed out on the #1 pick. We've already seen what he does with franchise players. He trades them away for cap space. Is that a franchise that should be rewarded?

I can understand that viewpoint, but I don't agree. Sometimes teams, like the Grizzlies, are just terrible at playing basketball. They just can't win games consistently. Teams like that need premier talents like Oden and Durant or they'll be stuck in mediocrity (less than mediocrity) for years. Do we see teams in other pro sports blatantly tanking for the #1? I'm sure it happens, but it's not such a huge problem that the other leagues have installed a lottery system.

Plus, those teams aren't being "rewarded". If a team is blatantly tanking, no one will buy tickets. If a team is "rebuilding", the same is true.

I'd prefer a system where we just took teams at their word and the NBA vigilantly investigated teams that were suspected of tanking. Then, they could leverage heavy fines and other such penalties on the coach/ownership or whomever in the event that it were true. I just think that's more fair than assuming all **** teams are guilty and penalizing them with a lottery system.

Oh I agree that Memphis has bungled their opportunities to win because of more than just missing the #1 pick. I just think it is a bit ludicrous to expect that the fates of franchises should rely on ping pong balls. Just imagine the difference between San Antonio and Boston over the last decade had we gotten Duncan.

If they want to do a lottery, make it only for like the bottom 5. I think that would still give a disincentive to losing but prevent a team like Chicago from getting the #1 overall pick. That would be like if the NFL did that and the Patriots (the #7 pick) ended up with the top overall pick in the draft. I just don't think it is fair, despite the chance a team might tank. The NFL faces the same dilemma, as teams at the bottom like Miami very well could've tanked the last month knowing they were out of the playoffs. And losing one game in the NFL makes a far bigger impact in moving up and down a draft than in the NBA, because they play just 16 vs 82 games. You can't stop a franchise from tanking if they want to, ping pong balls or not.

Mr. Chunk wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



I can understand that viewpoint, but I don't agree. Sometimes teams, like the Grizzlies, are just terrible at playing basketball. They just can't win games consistently. Teams like that need premier talents like Oden and Durant or they'll be stuck in mediocrity (less than mediocrity) for years. Do we see teams in other pro sports blatantly tanking for the #1? I'm sure it happens, but it's not such a huge problem that the other leagues have installed a lottery system.

Plus, those teams aren't being "rewarded". If a team is blatantly tanking, no one will buy tickets. If a team is "rebuilding", the same is true.

I'd prefer a system where we just took teams at their word and the NBA vigilantly investigated teams that were suspected of tanking. Then, they could leverage heavy fines and other such penalties on the coach/ownership or whomever in the event that it were true. I just think that's more fair than assuming all **** teams are guilty and penalizing them with a lottery system.

The difference between the NBA and the other sports is that one person can make a much bigger difference in basketball. There are only 5 guys on the court at one time. There's 9 for baseball and 11 for football. And with football, there are many times never a clear-cut #1, and if there is, it could possibly be at a position that the team doesn't need. So they'd prefer to have a lesser pick, and therefore less money they'd have to pay to a guy they would've drafted anyway.

CelticsWhat! wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



The difference between the NBA and the other sports is that one person can make a much bigger difference in basketball. There are only 5 guys on the court at one time. There's 9 for baseball and 11 for football. And with football, there are many times never a clear-cut #1, and if there is, it could possibly be at a position that the team doesn't need. So they'd prefer to have a lesser pick, and therefore less money they'd have to pay to a guy they would've drafted anyway.

I agree. It is easier to tank in basketball than the other sports. Still, I think there are measures that can be taken to discourage teams from doing it that don't penalize teams that are legitimately bad. If a team is tanking, that's coming down from ownership/front office and going through the coaches to the players. If it were happening someone would talk about it and investigation by the NBA could easily prove it. That's more reasonable than the current system.

It's a terrible system because it basically assumes all bad teams would tank if they played it straight and that sucks, because it ends up hurting teams that do play it straight and are legitimately bad. Plus, people still claim teams tank even with the system. ****, the age limit is terrible too, but we have to live with it.

**** Stern.

Minnesota didn't just get Al Jefferson for Garnett. They also got their top 3 protected pick in 2009 which very well could be a #4-10 pick.

This trade was a scam. The sad thing is that 3 quality veterans who deserve good fortune were put together by gutting last years team of all quality young players except Rondo and Perk. Meanwhile a douchbag and a rapist who forced Phil Jackson and Shaq out of town and pouted all offseason about wanting a trade suddenly gets a gift wrapped reward and ticket to the finals.

If LA wins the title I will never watch the NBA again.