Grizzlies to waive Kwame

asdfgh · Post #1 » by **asdfgh** » Fri Feb 1, 2008 11:06 pm

That's what was apparently reported on some radio station (visit the main board for more info).
I guess it makes sense since he wasn't part of your future plans but the trade is still bad.

asdfgh · Post #2 » by **asdfgh** » Fri Feb 1, 2008 11:18 pm

An update: After Kwame is waived, he will wait for 30 days and then sign again with the Lakers. That's what the reports out of LA are saying.

Dexmor · Post #3 » by **Dexmor** » Fri Feb 1, 2008 11:56 pm

You guys are very lucky. Kwame is a cancer. When I first heard the news I was super excited for Gasol of course but almost as excited to hear Kwame was gone. He misses unmissable shots and is just the worst player in the history of the league, literally.

PatrickJNYC · Post #4 » by **PatrickJNYC** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 12:14 am

If only Michael Jordan picked Gasol in the draft instead of Kwame in 2001. Jordan would've made the playoffs and went on to face Kidd and the Nets in the Eastern Finals. The Wizards amazingly recovered from such a disastrous draft move by getting an all star in Caron Butler.

RJM · Post #5 » by **RJM** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 12:17 am

Kwame might not see himself in an NBA uniform anytime soon.

Tommy Trojan · Post #6 » by **Tommy Trojan** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 1:32 am

I would love to take Kwame back

memgrizzlies · Post #7 » by **memgrizzlies** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 3:23 am

Great...

So pretty much the deal is...

GASOL

for

JAVARIUS CRITTENTON
2 DRAFT PICKS

WOW the worst deal in history.

Trade an All-Star for a rookie and 2 draft picks that wont even be good draft picks because the Lakers are now unstoppable.

giordunk · Post #8 » by **giordunk** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 4:01 am

Universe · Post #9 » by **Universe** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 4:23 am

So for bigs there is;

Hakim
Collins
Darko

Wow.

Jimmy103 · Post #10 » by **Jimmy103** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:25 am

Why wouldn't Kwame sign with Boston?

GrizzledGrizzFan · Post #11 » by **GrizzledGrizzFan** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 5:27 am

For what it's worth, Wallace made no mention what so ever of waiving Kwame during the press conference. With everything else that went down, no real reason for him not to.

Post #12 » by **semi-sentient** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 8:35 am

Jimmy103 wrote:Why wouldn't Kwame sign with Boston?

Because everyone on the Lakers already likes him (and vice-versa), particularly Phil and Kobe.

D-Wags#13 · Post #13 » by **D-Wags#13** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 10:03 am

wouldn't make no sense for the lakers to sign brown, cause players signed after march 1st aren't allowed to play in the playoffs i think. so if he had to wait 30 days, this march 1st deadline would get passed...

P2 · Post #14 » by P2 » Sat Feb 2, 2008 10:37 am

D-Wags#13 wrote:wouldn't make no sense for the lakers to sign brown, cause players signed after march 1st aren't allowed to play in the playoffs i think. so if he had to wait 30 days, this march 1st deadline would get passed...

Exactly.

Varsity878 · Post #15 » by **Varsity878** » Sat Feb 2, 2008 11:33 am

D-Wags#13 wrote:wouldn't make no sense for the lakers to sign brown, cause players signed after march 1st aren't allowed to play in the playoffs i think. so if he had to wait 30 days, this march 1st deadline would get passed...

Actually to clarify, Kwame Brown can resign with the Lakers and be playoff eligible. The rule is a player who is waived AFTER March 1st is ineligible to play to in the playoffs, not one who is waived prior to it. The only issue is Kwame has to wait 30 days in order to resign with the Lakers. He can resign anywhere else right now after he clears waivers. But to go back to LA, he is looking at around March 3rd-4th depending on when the deal is approved by the league and then he can go back to the Lakers and still play for them in the playoffs. Teams do not have to submit their playoff rosters until the last day of the regular season.

Think of it like this... If the Lakers wanted to sign Sprewell on the last day of the season for the playoffs, they can. Because he wasn't waived after March 1st, 2008.

I thought it was the same way you stated until I was corrected and actually read the rule myself.