NY Post says Memphis never talked to another team about Pau

jamlando · Post #1 » by **jamlando** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:51 pm

According to the NY Post... "I'd rather quickly revisit the Grizzlies' tax-deductible donation to the Lakers. Again, while I don't necessarily fault VP Chris Wallace for trading Pau Gasol, thus creating cavernous cap room, gaining a pair of hallow first-round picks, two talented tadpoles and $3 million, I do believe he could've gotten more had he opened the bidding.

From what I gather from communicating with numerous GMs, other than the Lakers not a single team was approached regarding Gasol's manifest availability. Had they been, there's every reason to believe the Grizzlies could've gleaned more.

At the very least, there's no way Gasol should've been traded for next to nothing except promises of something to come unless Brian Cardinal's contract ($6.3M/$6.7M after this year) was part of the outgoing package."

richboy · Post #2 » by **richboy** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:45 am

Anytime you start a thread with NY Post says then you can toss it out. I've said before though that its obvious that the Grizzlies wanted expiring contracts young players and draft picks. I think people underestimate what the Grizzlies received. Marc Gasol is a good prospect and JC would have been a lottery pick in this year draft. Marc would have been a definite first round pick. They received enough cap space to go after a max player and got 2 more picks in the process. IMO that is a good deal and most teams could not have matched.

mattyBoi · Post #3 » by **mattyBoi** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:44 am

Im inclined to believe they could have gotten expirings, better picks, AND more talent back.

They only wanted to make this trade with the lakers and i believe that says something.

zerp · Post #4 » by **zerp** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:16 am

Great job Otis. :banghead:

Typhoon20 · Post #5 » by **Typhoon20** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:34 am

mattyBoi wrote:Im inclined to believe they could have gotten expirings, better picks, AND more talent back.

They only wanted to make this trade with the lakers and i believe that says something.

Exactly !

People that keep saying ''well they just wanted some expirings, picks should STFU please. They could have gotten expirings but with higher draft picks and better talent in return, PERIOD.

lovehoops01 · Post #6 » by **lovehoops01** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:37 am

zerp wrote:Great job Otis. :banghead:

I really got the impression from the OP that it meant that the Grizzlies weren't interested in talking to any other team about a deal.

mhectorgato · Post #7 » by **mhectorgato** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:16 pm

lovehoops01 wrote:I really got the impression from the OP that it meant that the Grizzlies weren't interested in talking to any other team about a deal.

Does that make a difference around here?

Oti$ i$ overpaid!!

theTHIEF · Post #8 » by **theTHIEF** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:19 pm

idk, i believe it...

flyingvee · Post #9 » by **flyingvee** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:29 pm

This deal stinks to high heaven. In the context of what Boston also got prior to this again in exchange for not much then you know someting fishy is up.

MagicalMan · Post #10 » by **MagicalMan** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:35 pm

Do we have any former GMs on other teams now? We need another teams GM in our back pocket too. It would really help just look at the Lakers and Celtics. This does wreak of a Stern conspiracy theory.

spinedoc · Post #11 » by **spinedoc** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 6:44 pm

I don't know if Stern was involved or not, but it was definitely some insider trading. It wasn't opened up to other teams, because there was no desire to do so.