# Gasol trade sparks war of words



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

> NEW YORK -- Grizzlies GM Chris Wallace went on the offensive against his critics on Thursday, calling the unattributed criticism of the Pau Gasol trade from other general managers "pillow talk" and daring any league executives to go on the record against the deal.
> 
> Before Friday night's game against the Knicks, Spurs president and head coach Gregg Popovich did just that.
> 
> ...


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/nba/02/08/popovich.grizzlies/index.html?eref=si_nba


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

But ol' Popvich was hatin', with his punk ***.

Of course he was against it. Now he's not gonna win the west.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

People are still going to have to explain to me how having a team with very little talent and a sagging attendance is more attractive to buy.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> People are still going to have to explain to me how having a team with very little talent and a sagging attendance is more attractive to buy.


Maybe Chris Wallace will break it down after he trades Mike Miller for nothing next week.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

I'd rather trade my star for little than shut him down when he is healthy again.


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> People are still going to have to explain to me how having a team with very little talent and a sagging attendance is more attractive to buy.


I was wondering the same thing when I first read responses to the trade. I thought having Gasol with bad attendance would be better than not having Gasol with terrible attendance when it came to selling the franchise.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

Pops gonna be eating his words when Critt turns out to have a better career than Gasol.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Vuchato said:


> Pops gonna be eating his words when Critt turns out to have a better career than Gasol.


I doubt _that _very much.


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

I thinkyou guys hsould play small ball

Milicic/Brown
Gay/Warrick
Miller/Warrick-Jacobsen
Navarro/Jacobsen
Conley/Lowry

High octane basketball would atleast bring a few more people to the arena?????????


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

hroz said:


> I thinkyou guys hsould play small ball
> 
> Milicic/Brown
> Gay/Warrick
> ...


Honestly, it doesn't matter at this point. We simply do not have enough talent and this was the problem with Gasol. Style of play is a message board and talk radio thing. If San Antonio decided to play uptempo, they would still be contenders because they have good players. If Phoenix slows it down, they will still contend because they have good players. We have bad players. We have about 6 players that should be getting rotation minutes in the NBA and all of them are in to important of a role for their skill and/or experience.

On a contender:

Rudy Gay would be a third option
Mike Miller would be a spot up shooter.
Darko would be a backup center.
Conley would be a backup PG.
Lowry would be a backup PG.
Juan Carlos Navarro would be a off the bench shooter ala Brent Barry.

So we have two players that are starter quality on good teams. That is why we suck.

So are hope is for Conley to develop into a starting level point guard. Rudy Gay to mature into a viable 1st/2nd option. Draft Michael Beasley to be our 1st/2nd option. Sign a wing player that can be our 3rd option (Iguodala) in the summer. Hope Darko develops into a starter. Draft a capable backup PF/C with the Lakers pick or trade for one.

PG Mike Conley, Kyle Lowry
SG Andre Iguodala or Mike Miller, Javaris Crittenton
SF Rudy Gay
PF Michael Beasley
C Darko Milicic

This gives you the option of using Mike Miller and Hakim Warrick in a sign and trade for Iguodala or trading Mike Miller and Hakim Warrick for a veteran, physical power forward(Chris Wilcox, Udonis Haslem, Fabrico Oberto, Craig Smith) if you miss out on Beasley this summer.


----------



## thaKEAF (Mar 8, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> Honestly, it doesn't matter at this point. We simply do not have enough talent and this was the problem with Gasol. Style of play is a message board and talk radio thing. If San Antonio decided to play uptempo, they would still be contenders because they have good players. If Phoenix slows it down, they will still contend because they have good players. We have bad players. We have about 6 players that should be getting rotation minutes in the NBA and all of them are in to important of a role for their skill and/or experience.
> 
> On a contender:
> 
> ...


I've never really sat down and looked at it like that, we need ALOT of work. :laugh:

I see I'm not the only one who would love to get Iguodala brought in. Not too sure if Philly is willing to pay him the bucks he'll be wanting from them.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Mike Miller is a lot better than just a spot up shooter. He can do other stuff with the ball. Good stuff.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

thaKEAF said:


> I was wondering the same thing when I first read responses to the trade. I thought having Gasol with bad attendance would be better than not having Gasol with terrible attendance when it came to selling the franchise.


Only one man can solve this franchise's problems:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UKSiy4qxceM&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UKSiy4qxceM&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

:biggrin:


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Chan said:


> Mike Miller is a lot better than just a spot up shooter. He can do other stuff with the ball. Good stuff.


He's more than a spot-up shooter on an awful team like ours. On a title contender, he'd best be used as a perimeter shooter.

I agree that he's more versatile than a Kyle Korver or a Wally Szczerbiak, but on a championship caliber team, I'd want him more as a high-end Brent Barry (another very good all-around player in his heyday) than a guy who's asked to do more than nail three-pointers. Miller's way too turnover prone to be doing "Grizzly Mike Miller stuff" on a title contender.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Rawse said:


> He's more than a spot-up shooter on an awful team like ours. On a title contender, he'd best be used as a perimeter shooter.
> 
> I agree that he's more versatile than a Kyle Korver or a Wally Szczerbiak, but on a championship caliber team, I'd want him more as a high-end Brent Barry (another very good all-around player in his heyday) as a guy who's asked to do more than nail three-pointers. Miller's way too turnover prone to be doing "Grizzly Mike Miller stuff" on a title contender.


He would fulfill the role of say Steve Smith on those blazer teams.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

But Miller looked good in the Olympics. His pull-up jumper was good enough to score with the best of them. He'd be a spot up shooter when he gets older, but for now I'd trust him with more. If he was pared up with Lebron he'd be more a sidekick (what Hughes was supposed to be) than a Daniel Gibson-type shooter-that-drives-occasionally.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Hey Chan...How about Mike Miller/Brian Cardinal/Jason Collins for Larry Hughes/Drew Gooden?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Sure, why not. I'm not even a Cavs fan, I just like this AV.


----------

