Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by TrueBlue:

I don't think Zach is that piece per say. He may help them better than Lewis playing the 4 spot. I think they're a big man away and can't think of many out there who could fit the 4 spot besides maybe an O'neal/Odom who are probably attainable. Even they are stretches. Orlando needs a big next to Howard.

if there's 1 thing they DON'T need it's a ballhogging no defense playing PF who's gonna clog up the paint for Dwight Howard... they'd be much better off targeting a defensive role player like an Andres Nocioni or someone of that ilk that doesn't carry w/them a bloated contract & has the flexibility to knock down an open shot or play a physical style as well if need be while also defending down on the other end of the floor & moving relatively well on the break... they have zero need for someone like Zach Randolph when they already have 1 of the most bloated contracts in the game in Rashard Lewis rotting on their cap for the next 29 seasons.

I can agree with this slant some not sure about the Noch suggestion since they already have 3 6-10 perimeter oriented guys. Your theory/reasoning with Orlando is digestable overall. Pros and Cons to most trades. So why aren't you using this reasoning Indiana wanting to trade J.O. for Zach? Even more unrealistic considering Indiana is close to blow-up mode. They have Troy Murphy(pf) and Ike Diogu(pf) So I guess Murphy slides over to play center? Indiana wants to unload Tinsley and Murphy if they could with O'neal or simultaneously as the rid him. Zach wouldn't be the player they want to replace J.O. with, it would be some younger player who plays center they can build around or man the paint, hence why they were asking for Bynum last yr. Dalembert may be more appropriate.

Anyway we're not debating this from the side of why would another team want to do the trade, it's why we would want to do the trade and what benefits our team the most when dealing Zach. Like I said in the original suggestion Orlando probably has reservations meanwhile no indication from you Indiana has such reservations.


And just to incorporate your idea into mine because I also said creativity would need to be involved give Orlando Noch and Duhon send Zach to Chicago. That's far better than J.O. for Zach we take most of everything from Orlando.

Orlando trades

Arroyo
Garrity
Dooling
#1 pick

Chicago trades
Noch
Duhon

Knicks trade
Zach
Mardy and/or Nate



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 02-09-2008 3:27 PM]

Posted by TMS:

u guys are crazy... our biggest need on this team is a defensive presence in the frontcourt & to unload Zach's ridiculous contract... this move would do it in 1 fell swoop... i can't understand the mentality some of you have... let's hold onto Zach Randolph & he's gonna take us to the promised land... wonderful.

if Isiah can get JO from Indy just by giving up Zach & filler expirings like Fred Jones & say Morris, who isn't playing a wink as it is, you do it w/o even batting an eyelash.

unfortunately, i can't imagine a trade for JO that wouldn't also involve taking on Jamaal Tinsley's longterm contract also, which changes the complexion of the trade entirely... if that's the case the only way i do the deal is if i can also unload Curry, Q, Jefferies or Turd in the process, & no way would i even think about including D Lee or Balk.

this would be a much more balanced starting 5 than what we currently have:

C - O'Neal
PF - D Lee
SF - Balkman
SG - Jamal
PG - Tinsley

--------------

Originally posted by GKFv2: Man you must be high when you post here. Neither of those do anything to significantly help the team.

TMS: maybe not but if we can unload 1 year off Zach's contract it's worth the trouble, no? where are we going if we stand pat as it is? if the overall product won't improve after trading for JO then at the very least we can get out from about $30 mil in contract & luxury tax savings in the final year of Zach's contract.

--------------

Originally posted by BigC: The only thing I want from the Knicks is more draft picks and for all of the these contracts to expire.

TMS: exactly why it would make sense to get rid of Zach's contract for someone who's contract expires a year sooner... JO's still got some game left & he blocks shots, something we desperately need in our frontcourt.

--------------

Originally posted by Mac: Some of these posts are rediculous. Oneal would improve the interior D by a million percent.

TMS: seriously can't understand the opposition to this one... if it means just a straight up trade w/filler contracts it benefits us in every way imaginable, whether JO plays or not... that last year of salary is huge... anything we got from JO in terms of play is a bonus AFAIC.

--------------

Originally posted by nyk4ever: You can't improve ANY defense when you're out injured.

TMS: where are we headed if we stand pat bro? think about it... nothing's gonna change unless we make moves to make it so... this trade isn't taking on any extra years in salary, so how does it really hurt us? no one's suggesting we give up a D Lee or a draft pick here... if the Pacers wanna unload him that badly we can certainly accomodate... there aren't exactly many requests coming our way for Zach's services as it is, not that he's a crappy player, let me make that clear before the Zach brigade comes crashing down on me for bashing the guy.

hell, if JO doesn't play it can even help us in the long run... not only would we be able to get rid of that last year on Zach's contract, we also would see D Lee starting games for a change like he should be doing in the first place & God knows not many of us are really opposed to that... also could mean a better pick in the lottery, but hey, what do i know? we can keep trying to add offensive players who play no D & hope we can sneak into that 9th slot in the lottery next season.

--------------

Originally posted by TrueBlue: Zach and J.O. both make the same amount in total value of their contracts. Actually J.O.'s is richer overall by about $2mil and he makes about $6-7mil more per yr than Zach on average. So the extra yr really isn't as big a bonus as you're making it out to be.

TMS: doesn't matter to me how much he makes, the important factor is that his contract expires a year sooner... it may not look like a benefit now but it sure will 2 years from now, bank on it.

--------------

Originally posted by TrueBlue: Who says Indiana wants Zach Randolph?

TMS: sheesh, did i say Indy wants Zach? i'm saying u guys are crazy to say you wouldn't make the deal if it was offered to u... can u just for once just take something i post at face value & not include your own weird spin on it?

acquiring an albatross high risk player while unloading our own... what's wrong with that?

Posted by BlueSeats:

People, people, people... the Grizz are one of the least profitable teams in the league. They rank 23rd in franchise value with negative revenue.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz_07nba_NBA-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

The skinny
The Grizzlies move to Memphis from Vancouver in 2001 dramatically boasted the value of the franchise, but fans have been slow to embrace the Grizzlies in the NBA's second smallest market. Attendance fell to last in the league last year as the team posted 60 losses and only 22 wins after three straight playoff appearances. Owner Michael Heisley has been trying to unload the team and thought he had a deal in place with former Duke hoops stars Brian Davis and Christian Laettner for $360 million last year. But Davis' group could not line up the financing for the deal. Heisley's search for new ownership continues.

Clearly this deal was made to lower payroll expenditures in order to make the team more appealing to buyers.

Posted by MS:

What stock are you looking for?

Miami could have given up Wright, Mourning, Davis and Williams and possible taken back another bad deal in order to make it happen along with a first rounder.

The Nets could have moved Kristic and expiring, the Bulls could have done the same with a young player and an expiring.

Imagine McChale that dumb **** passed up Chandler, Deng and the number two pick (Gay, Roy Aldrige) which is better than having garnett and you rebuild you're franchise in one move.

He also turned down Harrington, Biedrins, and Ellis plus a first round pick. Al Jefferson is a good young talent but you need to take the best deal that you can.

Look at Orlando they destroyed any chance of winning a championship because the didn't know that Turkalou was better than Lewis. Some of these GM's don't know a thing about building a good team.....

I'm sorry if your Memphis and have Lowry, Gay, Navarro why do you need Jarvis, it makes no sense they were 8 better offers out there.

Posted by bitty41:

I think you guys really don't put enough stock into ownership input. As Blueseats pointed out earlier in this thread, there were other ramifications to this deal.

Oh no I agree with that sentiment ny4ever. The owner was being cheap bottom line he probably cares very little about his franchise's winning percentage and at this point only cares about cutting down his costs. Which doesn't make them any closer to improving their franchise either now or the future.

They weren't going to win any games with Gasol on the team and his salary on the books. You preferred their current state vs the one they have now? With the aftermath they'll continue to suck for a while... even more probably, improve their draft position, pick up moderate assets, and have a chance to make a little noise in free agency. If they make one or two more moves they'll be major players in free agency next yr and if they strike out they'll have the same options the following yr. This is oh so difficult for us to understand because we've never been close to having all those things simultaneously, so of course we bash anyone who accomplishes this

Posted by bitty41:

They weren't going to win any games with Gasol on the team and his salary on the books. You preferred their former state vs the one they have now? With the aftermath they'll continue to suck for a while... even more probably, improve their draft position, pick up moderate assets, and have a chance to make a little noise in free agency. If they make one or two more moves they'll be major players in free agency next yr and if they strike out they'll have the same options the following yr. This is oh so difficult for us to understand because we've never been close to having all those things simultaneously, so of course we bash anyone who accomplishes this

I think when Pau got hurt in the beginnig of last season that was turning point in their franchise. Mem didn't really seem to support him when he came back his name constantly being thrown in trade talks. I think that messes with a player's head and can cause guys to become apathetic about the team.

But I'm not adverse to them dealing Pau but dealing him for possibilities when you could have dealt him for established players. Sure there's a chance they could get a Josh Howard or Gilbert Arenas in their high draft pick but thats a long a shot. So why not deal Pau for an establised player in the league use the lotto this summer and go from there?

Because you don't want to put a team in position to achieve mediocrity. What established player could they get who doesn't hurt their cap situation down the road? And if such established player was truly attainable what status does such player have in terms of wins and losses? Are you saying trade for a player such as Vince Carter who might be good enough to knock them out of Top 5 lottery position? The odds of being in the Top 5 lotterywise and landing a possible franchise player is way higher and more rewarding to the future than trying to tread water in a deep Western Conference. Memphis' plan should be to rebuild their team in 2-3yrs when the West Powerhouses start to bottom out, not bring a knife to a gunfight by picking up an established player(Carter, Jefferson, Odom, Marion, Kirilenko) and go nowhere.



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 02-11-2008 12:07 PM]