Father Pat

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Father Pat

  • Rank
    Hall of Famer

Contact Methods

  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    N.W. of Memphis
  • Interests
    The Memphis Grizzlies.

Recent Profile Visitors

791 profile views
  1. Who Do The Grizzlies Lose?

    Saw an article that pointed out Mike Conley is the only player that was drafted in the first round by the Memphis Grizzlies that was given a 2nd contract with the team. No other 1st round picks by the team since being in Memphis have been around long enough for a contract after their rookie deal.
  2. Who Do The Grizzlies Lose?

    Ronald Tillery: Hearing Jarell Martin has been told he’ll be waived but has option to stay in Griz camp to entice suitors #MediaDay
  3. What will or could happen is as simple as I stated. Nothing could happen, or Kaplan evokes the clause. If he does, then Pera buys him out or he buys Pera out. I think you are exaggerating about Pera hating him, he simply didn't want to pay Kaplan what he (Kaplan) felt was fair market price for his shares. Kaplan may very well have a great dislike towards Pera because it prevented him from buying the T-Wolves, I can see that, but if Kaplan wanted it badly enough he still could have found a buyer for his shares, so too stinking bad for Kaplan. I have no idea why you think Pera has "a lot of leverage". He will be faced with a simple question; buy or sell. Kaplan is the one that has nearly all the leverage here. He's also been involved in attempts to purchase the Hawks, baseballs S.D. Padres, and the T-Wolves. If he wants the team, he can get the money together. I'm sure he knows exactly what amount he will have to ask that Pera can't afford. There is a huge difference between Pera's net worth and the amount of cash he will be able to scrape together to buy out Kaplan. To me, this whole thing will prove that Pera is either a very shrewd and intelligent business man - by keeping the Grizzlies, or a fool with no forward vision - by losing the team to Kaplan who he could have just paid fair market value to, allowing him to buy the T-Wolves and then solidifying a friendship with another NBA owner.
  4. His intentions don't matter. Kaplan is the one that can make the sale/buyout happen. Kaplan also names the price.
  5. Grizzlies Predictions

    Marc Gasol: I’m very ambitious and I’ve wanted Memphis to be a great franchise. We’ve grown a lot the last 6-7 years, but we have to keep growing. If this is not lined up, maybe we may have to revisit things. Marc said this 3 weeks ago. Doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. So, assuming they don't fall into a funk and play like garbage the first few weeks, which will probably lead to Gasol being shopped, here's what I think; 1. Warriors 2. Rockets 3. Spurs 4. Clippers - I believe they will be having a lob fest there, taking advantage of all the small ball teams, and finishing better than most imagined. 5. Thunder 6. T-Wolves 7. Jazz - "Gordon who?" They have a chip on their collective shoulders and feel betrayed. They are united and will play well. 8 . Blazers 9. Grizzlies - Assuming Gasol doesn't get traded 10. Pelicans - Assuming Brow and Boogie are both kept. Could move up if they get some bench help 11. Nuggets 12. Mavs - For the first time, I actually feel sorry for Carlisle. Just a little. 13 - 15. Lakers, Sactown, & Phoenix
  6. Fizz goes off !!!

    “I think if you ask most black people to be honest, they ain’t thought a day in their life about those stupid statues. What we as black people need to do: we need to worry about getting our education, we need to stop killing each other, we need to try to find a way to have more economic opportunity and things like that,” - Charles Barkley He was quickly called a lot of foul names for giving his opinion when asked the question. It made me remember the billboards that were all over the Memphis area when my wife and I moved away 5 years ago; "Chill, don't kill". Most people did not talk about the high level of violence, or the billboard campaign, with the emotion that they have toward 2 statues that most gave no thought to until recently. Actually, I can't remember anyone talking about those billboards. We can all agree that a single human life is far more important than any statue or monument, so why is it so easy for some to become angry when a man voices what we all agree on? Should some of these statues be taken down, yes. Should every single one be taken down because of the assumption that all confederate monuments were constructed based solely on racism? I think that's idiotic. Should we place our priorities and emotions in more important things as Barkley suggested? Of course. Evidently some just don't want to hear it though.
  7. Fizz goes off !!!

    Reminds me of John Newton, the writer of the famous song "Amazing Grace". I suppose there will be someone demanding that the song should be removed from all hymnals and burned.
  8. Every Team's Projected 2017-18 Record

    No kidding I keep going back to the team aspect. Isn't that what it's all about? - "TA not playing Kawhi was a huge impact." If the team still loses when Tony played, how was only his not playing a huge impact? The end result was the same. They lost when he played and they lost when he didn't play, but him not playing was a huge impact because Kawhi scored more in those losses than the other losses. I don't believe I made any argument about Selden either. Don't know where you pulled the "Spurs had to change their defense because of Selden" stuff out of. You ignore the damage he causes to team offensive output. The point is the end result of what the team did, not what he had done or may have done only on defense against just one opponent. His positive contribution without stating his negative contribution fails to honestly state his total impact. An extreme example would be to point out Thabeets shot blocking ability and not mention the rest of his game. A huge impact by any player makes the difference in a win or a loss, not just what one player does against the Grizzlies while they still lose. You say that Kawhi didn't score as much when Tony played against him, so Kawhi would have scored less in that series had Tony played, but the Grizzlies still could not have beaten the Spurs. Big stinking deal. You are only recognizing a small part of the story. One dimensional players can only help a team if their faults can be hidden or covered by the rest of the team. The worst shooting team playing a guy that adds to that problem because he can slow down one opponents scoring doesn't make for a net gain.
  9. Every Team's Projected 2017-18 Record

    Sure. The Grizzlies lost 4 games in that series by an average of 16 points per game, but Super Tony would have made so much of a difference that the Spurs would have lost 2 more games in that series. It's also why every team in the league is throwing crazy money at Super Tony now that he is a free agent. It's not every day that such NBA difference makers are available. But why stop at Tony? If Parsons was healthy that would have also been a big help. If Vince was ten years younger, why that would have been huge. If... Get over it. Tony did not play in the playoffs. Citing stats of what Leonard's shooting percentage was when Tony guarded him, which did not result in more Grizzly victories than loses, is totally irrelevant and pointless.
  10. Every Team's Projected 2017-18 Record

    I provided factual information that was the body of work vs an assumption. You are hyper focused on what Kawhi may not have been able to score had Tony played. What you fail to take into account is the negative impact(s) that Tony would have brought. Tony on the floor means more flexibility for opponent double teaming and less offensive effectiveness. Against another team Tony may have been impactful, but not the Spurs. Just because Kawhi had an easier time without Tony does not mean the Spurs would have failed as a team against the Grizzlies. To imagine that the Spurs would not have adjusted their team play and lost is ridiculous. The past performances against the Spurs very much suggest that Tony would not have made an impact, and undoubtedly he would not have made "a huge impact". In the past, keeping Kawhi from scoring 30 plus was not the magic recipe of success against the Spurs. Why you would think it suddenly would have been during the playoffs is simply imagined. Tony's negative impact(s) would have once again been exploited as they have been many times before. The Grizzlies were the worst shooting team in the league last season. Had Tony played during the playoffs it would have only made it easier for Popovich to exploit that fact.
  11. Every Team's Projected 2017-18 Record

    6 playoff games vs Spurs without T.A. : 2-4 Last 6 reg. season games against the Spurs that T.A. played : 2-4 Last 6 reg. season games in which both T.A. and Leonard played : 1-5 Last 2 playoff series against the Spurs with T.A. playing : 0-8 I wouldn't call having Tony playing against the Spurs a huge impact.
  12. Every Team's Projected 2017-18 Record

    Tony only played in 2 games against Leonard during the regular season. In those games, Tony shot .368 % from the field (7-19). The results in victories were split, and in the game the Spurs lost, Parker and Mills shot a combined 4-16, compared to them hitting 10 of 20 in their win. Leonard was 6-15 in their loss and 7-15 in their win, not a huge difference. Tony guarding Leonard had less of an impact than you would like to think.
  13. Every Team's Projected 2017-18 Record

    I understand what you're saying, and was inclined to agree until I looked it up. Last season the Grizzlies were 43-39, and were still above .500 without Mike and/or Marc playing; 11-8 (32-31 in games with both Mike and Marc). In games where Mike was out but Marc still played the Grizzlies were 8-3. In games with Marc out and Conley played; 3-3. Grizzlies were 0-2 when both did not play.
  14. JaM Ain't Going Anywhere

    Why yes, I did say "fairly certain". Very perceptive of you to notice.