Wiretap:Popovich rips Gasol Trade

[dvdrdiscs]

-= original quote snipped =-


Exactly what difference does it make if it's two or three expiring contracts instead of one? What is important is what they got to build on in the future, not the crap they want to get rid of during or at the end of the year.

The difference is something called roster space. If you trade for 2-3 expiring Ks, and your roster is already maxed, you have to end up buying out guys to make room for new guys coming in. Which scenario do you think is more cost efficient, especially to a team that is trying to save money in the first place?

[dvdrdiscs]

atlanta was in no position to trade for gasol, u seem to be ignoring that. josh smith is due a huge contract and the hawks already have horford at center. combine that with their ownership situation and the fact that they are several years away from seriously competing and do u really think the hawks were in a position to trade for gasol? is there even anything that says the hawks were pursuing gasol or is that just something fabricated? this whole 3 team deals to facilitate a deal is realgm trade board stuff, teams rarely start creating 3 team or 4 team trades. i mean, u just throw the clippers name in there cause they have an expiring, it doesn't work like that.

from most reports coming out of chicago, they were the ones that weren't willing to pay lux tax to acquire gasol and instead wanted the grizz to absorb the contracts of their good role players. if the grizz are trying to rebuild, why trade for role players with unwanted contracts? i just see a bunch of what ifs going on here like if the grizz purposely ignored better offers that met their goals.

Exactly. When it's all said and done, when you start with the following two criteria: 1) A team that was actively inquiring about Gasol and 2) A team that has a large expiring K, it really narrows it down to probably 2-3 teams at most who were in the running.

[LakerFanMan]

This whole thing just makes it seem like the Grizz are really intending to sell. I guess they figure having a cheap, young team is more appealing. From a talent standpoint they obviously got the lower end of the deal. But, as others have said, I havn't seen any legit reports of teams offering better then what the Lakers did.

[Harry Heinous]

Jeff Van Gundy just absolutely ripped the grizzlies and the trade.

[jzmagik]

Jeff Van Gundy just absolutely ripped the grizzlies and the trade.

Any link or quotes? I'm curious to what he said.

[streetp0et]

why do lakers fan feel the need to defend this trade so much? if i was a laker fan i'd be like hell yea we got gasol for nothing. grizzlies fan should be the one defending their team decision. its obvious that this is a extremely lopsided deal when the receiving team is being more defensive than the trading team.

[JellosJigglin]

why do lakers fan feel the need to defend this trade so much? if i was a laker fan i'd be like hell yea we got gasol for nothing. grizzlies fan should be the one defending their team decision. its obvious that this is a extremely lopsided deal when the receiving team is being more defensive than the trading team.

Oh we're all aware we got the better end of the deal. The Lakers found themselves in a perfect situation. The timing couldn't have been any better. The Grizz were willing to dump Gasol at the same time that the Lakers had the biggest expiring contract on the market. This was just all timing and opportunism.

Laker fans are really only arguing with the conspiracy theorists who think there was some shady under-the-table business dealing going on. It's a slap in the face of Jerry West, who Laker fans will defend to the grave.

The fact is, there were so few teams (if any) that could meet the necessary criteria to make this trade.

[ITK9]

the trade makes absoltuly no sense.you can't trade a top pf in his prime for nothing.Pop is right...

[ajax]

-= original quote snipped =-




The difference is something called roster space. If you trade for 2-3 expiring Ks, and your roster is already maxed, you have to end up buying out guys to make room for new guys coming in. Which scenario do you think is more cost efficient, especially to a team that is trying to save money in the first place?

Wrong.

When you buy out a player you pay him less than what you owe him. Grizz would actually save money if say a Cardinal agreed to a buyout for less than what the Grizz owe him to be released from his contract. If nobody agreed to a buyout you just release the ones you don't want to get to the number 15 on your roster.