Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, BigHunkALove said:

I dont want rubbish that the Knicks wanna dump who cant shoot.

Also Temple >> Pumpfake Lee

Also if JaM wants to stay for the same money AND accepts a bench role, fine, otherwise move him, or let him drop off the books.

I don't just accept that if we have capspace only overpriced mediocre players are gonna come here. If we are in the playoffs or in the hunt, good players on crap teams will recognise us a a reasonable choice.

Also if we make a few smart buys like Anderson and Temple then we can assemble a very good team without busting the cap

Really?!!!  Is this your emotions posting?  Statistics don't lie.  Courtney Lee has about 5000 more points in this league than Temple, and has shot a higher percentage from the field, from three, and the charity stripe.  Last season was Garrett's career year at 8.4ppg.  Courtney was better than that every season in Memphis as well as last season in NY.  Don't get me wrong, I like Temple, and if he keeps it up he will surpass last season's high mark, but saying he's better than Lee who may have faked at the arc a few times, but had one of the best mid-range shots in the league is just flat-out incorrect.

The last "good player on a crap team" that recognized us as a reasonable choice got over $90M, and is still collecting it from the bench.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, smit-tay griz said:

Really?!!!  Is this your emotions posting?  Statistics don't lie.  Courtney Lee has about 5000 more points in this league than Temple, and has shot a higher percentage from the field, from three, and the charity stripe.  Last season was Garrett's career year at 8.4ppg.  Courtney was better than that every season in Memphis as well as last season in NY.  Don't get me wrong, I like Temple, and if he keeps it up he will surpass last season's high mark, but saying he's better than Lee who may have faked at the arc a few times, but had one of the best mid-range shots in the league is just flat-out incorrect.

The last "good player on a crap team" that recognized us as a reasonable choice got over $90M, and is still collecting it from the bench.

One the first point I like Temple as a "fit" better than Lee, the eye test tells me he is a better defender and his shooting is reasonable. But I like Lee too, he'd be a better fit thansay Selden, maybe even Marshon

On the second point, that sounds like the "once bitten twice shy" syndrome. Do we never again try getting a FA on the market because of what Parsons became for us? Anyway, if the truth is that he didnt undergo a medical before being signed, then the FO is flawed, not the scenario I was propsing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BigHunkALove said:

One the first point I like Temple as a "fit" better than Lee, the eye test tells me he is a better defender and his shooting is reasonable. But I like Lee too, he'd be a better fit thansay Selden, maybe even Marshon

On the second point, that sounds like the "once bitten twice shy" syndrome. Do we never again try getting a FA on the market because of what Parsons became for us? Anyway, if the truth is that he didnt undergo a medical before being signed, then the FO is flawed, not the scenario I was propsing

I think that Lee and Temple have some similarities.  Temple hit 89 threes last season, Lee 113.  They both shot close to the same percentage.  They're both decent defenders.  If we had both of those guys instead of Selden or MBrooks we would be better off.

Maybe it is a bit of the "once bitten twice shy" syndrome, but it still remains to be seen if we can attract any real free agent talent greater than a Kyle Anderson (which was a very smart signing IMO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, smit-tay griz said:

I think that Lee and Temple have some similarities.  Temple hit 89 threes last season, Lee 113.  They both shot close to the same percentage.  They're both decent defenders.  If we had both of those guys instead of Selden or MBrooks we would be better off.

Maybe it is a bit of the "once bitten twice shy" syndrome, but it still remains to be seen if we can attract any real free agent talent greater than a Kyle Anderson (which was a very smart signing IMO).

Anyway if the deal is to give up Temple and JaM for Lee and Frank N, then its a get out of town from me. Be just typical that Fizdale be trying to con us. If they want to get off them two so badly they can have Parsons since Fizdale was so enamored by him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kevin Love, Batum, Mozgov - that's the best you're gonna get for Chancun Parsons, and we probably need to give up 1st pick(s) as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MemphisX said:

The thing is this group is not going anywhere.  We do not want to be like New Orleans with Anthony Davis.  We want to peak in 5-7 seasons with Jaren.  We need to be building up assets to do so and need to have a clear vision of what type of team we want to put around him.  Trying to compete now is just silliness.  Letting this last little rebuilt value of Mike and Marc to go without milking it will hurt also.

We should be maintaining cap flexibility and acquiring 1st round picks if possible while identifying bargains that we can lock up for cheap.

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BigHunkALove said:

IF the stated goal of the owner is MUST WIN a championship, then the obvious blueprint is to spend over the cap to bring the best players in to achieve this.

Yep totally agree.   Pera talk about championship is just lip service.  I believe he won't be fully invested in that till he gets his company stuff back fully on track.    

 

13 hours ago, BigHunkALove said:

One the first point I like Temple as a "fit" better than Lee, the eye test tells me he is a better defender and his shooting is reasonable. But I like Lee too, he'd be a better fit thansay Selden, maybe even Marshon

Agree with you here too.  The thing i like about Temple is that he plays bigger than his size and is a better ball-handler than Lee is.   

Prefer not to do a retread but i can see the logic in pulling a Temple + JaM for Ntilinkina + Lee for both sides (although i'd rather get Tim Hardway).     CLee can be plugged right in to fill the void left by Temple.   Frank is a former lottery pick that's basically still a rookie that can be developed.   He has a much higher ceiling than any perimeter player on our current roster.   If Noah is decent Jaren can play primary PF for full season with backup PF mins filled by Kyle and Casspi.  Another win. 

Primary rotation becomes

Mike/Mack

Clee/Frank/Marshon

Kyle/Dillon

Jaren/Omri

Gasol/Noah

Offensively the team improves (Courtney better all-around scorer than Temple) and if Noah is solid defense doesn't slip. 

Knicks get two playable vets on expiring deals that frees up cap space for them to get Durant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BigHunkALove said:

This is a good debate going on here.

My view, while not shared by many, is that when the team makes the playoffs for 7 consecutive years that would and should be viewed as a sucess of some sort. I would think it likely that the FO or owner would view it as such as well.

IF the stated goal of the owner is MUST WIN a championship, then the obvious blueprint is to spend over the cap to bring the best players in to achieve this.

I dont necessary think there's a good probability of being a championship team just by being in a big market city AND staying under the cap. You would need to fluke the draft for at least 3-5 years, take a punt on wheeling and dealing players and all these deals work perfectly or take losses (tank) for a few years straight but that alone wont work.

How do you explain the Spurs winning all those championships without going over the luxury tax (which I assume you are referring to since practically every team is above the salary cap)? How do you explain Golden State winning their first title while under the luxury tax? I believe they won their second too but I can't swear to that. 

Clearly money management and success are connected but you don't have to be foolish with your money to be successful and even win a championship. You just have to be smart in how you use the funds you have available. The Grizzlies have spent right up to the edge of the luxury tax. It would be foolish to continue to throw more money at the problem this season to make up for foolish decisions made in the past.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

How do you explain the Spurs winning all those championships without going over the luxury tax (which I assume you are referring to since practically every team is above the salary cap)? How do you explain Golden State winning their first title while under the luxury tax? I believe they won their second too but I can't swear to that. 

Clearly money management and success are connected but you don't have to be foolish with your money to be successful and even win a championship. You just have to be smart in how you use the funds you have available. The Grizzlies have spent right up to the edge of the luxury tax. It would be foolish to continue to throw more money at the problem this season to make up for foolish decisions made in the past.  

They never bought a free agent. But they didn't have to.

They drafted two Superstars Hall of Fame players who were both 4-year players 1 even the fill his commitment to the Navy before he came to the NBA David Robinson and the other a 4-year player from Wake Forest in Tim Duncan.

When you have super star players that are willing to stay on a team at less money it's a lot less likely that you're going to have to go over the cap.

Also I wonder how the Spurs would be today have they not already won those five championships. it makes it a lot more palatable to go into a season knowing that you're probably going to barely make the playoffs if you already won five championships.

The Spurs may actually not make the playoffs this year which seems crazy since pop is so great but they're just not as talented this year. They lost Danny Green Kyle Anderson kawhi Leonard of which is a lot of defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kevin B Moses said:

They never bought a free agent. But they didn't have to.

They drafted two Superstars Hall of Fame players who were both 4-year players 1 even the fill his commitment to the Navy before he came to the NBA David Robinson and the other a 4-year player from Wake Forest in Tim Duncan.

When you have super star players that are willing to stay on a team at less money it's a lot less likely that you're going to have to go over the cap.

Also I wonder how the Spurs would be today have they not already won those five championships. it makes it a lot more palatable to go into a season knowing that you're probably going to barely make the playoffs if you already won five championships.

The Spurs may actually not make the playoffs this year which seems crazy since pop is so great but they're just not as talented this year. They lost Danny Green Kyle Anderson kawhi Leonard of which is a lot of defense.

Perhaps talent is needed more than money or even coaching. Talent in the front office to get the right players at the right price, talent on the court and yes even talent on the bench (although I put that as the last piece of the puzzle not the first). There is nothing about going over the luxury tax that shows me a stronger desire to win. It simply shows greater stupidity in how you choose your players. 

I'm not sure about San Antonio not buying free agents either. They got Danny Green as a free agent, Patty Mills as a free agent. LeMarcus Aldridge was a free agent. Rudy Gay was a free agent. The list goes on and on. 

But thanks for agreeing with me. Not going over the  luxury tax doesn't mean you don't want to win a championship. That was the original point I was discussing after all.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

Perhaps talent is needed more than money or even coaching. Talent in the front office to get the right players at the right price, talent on the court and yes even talent on the bench (although I put that as the last piece of the puzzle not the first). There is nothing about going over the luxury tax that shows me a stronger desire to win. It simply shows greater stupidity in how you choose your players. 

I'm not sure about San Antonio not buying free agents either. They got Danny Green as a free agent, Patty Mills as a free agent. LeMarcus Aldridge was a free agent. Rudy Gay was a free agent. The list goes on and on. 

But thanks for agreeing with me. Not going over the  luxury tax doesn't mean you don't want to win a championship. That was the original point I was discussing after all.  

You said explain how they won all those championships. Are you moving the goalposts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kevin B Moses said:

You said explain how they won all those championships. Are you moving the goalposts?

No. Bighunk said that not going over the "cap" (which I took to mean luxury tax line since nearly all teams are above the salary cap) shows you aren't interested in winning a title. I asked him, not you, to explain how San Antonio and Golden State won all their titles without going over the luxury tax if going over was required to try and win a title.

You decided to jump in the middle of the conversation and try to offer a reason San Antonio won without going over the cap. I don't deny your rationale that being intelligent and lucky in the draft helped San Antonio but I disagree with your premise that the Spurs also didn't go after free agents. They just signed their free agents for less money so they didn't have to go over the cap. They also convinced their stars to stay for less money. These are intelligent front office moves to protect a franchise financially while still continuing to pursue titles. 

Going over the luxury tax isn't a sign that the owner is committed to winning a title. It is a sign the front office is incapable of doing their job intelligently. There are far more examples of owners/front offices wasting money going over the luxury tax than there are examples of teams winning titles by buying players who put them into the luxury tax. 

If you have read the comment I quoted you should have realized this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

No. Bighunk said that not going over the "cap" (which I took to mean luxury tax line since nearly all teams are above the salary cap) shows you aren't interested in winning a title. I asked him, not you, to explain how San Antonio and Golden State won all their titles without going over the luxury tax if going over was required to try and win a title.

You decided to jump in the middle of the conversation and try to offer a reason San Antonio won without going over the cap. I don't deny your rationale that being intelligent and lucky in the draft helped San Antonio but I disagree with your premise that the Spurs also didn't go after free agents. They just signed their free agents for less money so they didn't have to go over the cap. They also convinced their stars to stay for less money. These are intelligent front office moves to protect a franchise financially while still continuing to pursue titles. 

Going over the luxury tax isn't a sign that the owner is committed to winning a title. It is a sign the front office is incapable of doing their job intelligently. There are far more examples of owners/front offices wasting money going over the luxury tax than there are examples of teams winning titles by buying players who put them into the luxury tax. 

If you have read the comment I quoted you should have realized this.  

Lamarcus Rudy gay and pau Gasol for that matter we're all signed after they won their championships. 

so your example free agents doesn't align with the Spurs championships so I'm not quite sure I understand you.

I never said that they didn't sign free agents later after their championships I said that during their championships they didn't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kevin B Moses said:

Lamarcus Rudy gay and powder sold for that matter we're all signed after they won their championships. 

so your example free agents doesn't align with the Spurs championships so I'm not quite sure I understand you.

I never said that they didn't sign free agents later after their championships I said that during their championships they didn't have to.

2014 San Antonio Free Agents: Patty Mills, Danny Green, Boris Diaw

2007 San Antonio Free Agents: Brent Barry, Michael Finley 

2005 San Antonio Free Agents: Robert Horry, Glenn Robinson, 

2003 San Antonio Free Agents: Bruce Bowen, Kevin Willis, Danny Ferry 

1999 San Antonio Free Agents: Mario Elie, Jaren Jackson (the dad), Jerome Kersey, Malik Rose

I didn't repeat players who were signed as free agents but remained with the Spurs for multiple titles either. Each time most of these players were integral to the team winning the title rather than coming close and failing. 

This is being trivial anyway. It is clear that my original point (which you seem to want to ignore completely to argue over free agent signings by the Spurs) is that going over the luxury tax isn't a precondition for an owner to want to win a title. Being responsible financially is the sign of an intelligent front office. Having an intelligent front office is vital to winning a title which I believe you agree with.

Being lucky in the lottery (and not blowing the picks), being intelligent with free agent signings and re-signing players for affordable salaries are all signs that an owner/front office is intelligent and is a requirement for winning a title. Going over the luxury tax is not.  

So why are you debating me on this issue? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the major point of debate is here, is do we have the pieces in place to be on track to build a successful program without suffering through multiple  "tank" seasons to try and rebuild. 

I tend to think we do- and I love the fact that we have two stars who have committed to Memphis for essentially their entire careers. Hopefully JJJ ends up the superstar we believe he is, and he follows that same path. 

For my part, I am thrilled that he is learning under Gasol. And if we get to the playoffs this year, all the better. Because next year he (JJJ) is going to be even better and Gasol is going to be playing for a contract. 

I don't get these people who hate on Gasol. Never have. is he perfect? of course not, but have you ever been on the houston boards and listen to them rail on Harden not playing defense, or rebounding or jacking up too many shots? There are haters in every town I guess. Grass isn't always greener. Also, I cant stand harden. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Memphisyank said:

I think the major point of debate is here, is do we have the pieces in place to be on track to build a successful program without suffering through multiple  "tank" seasons to try and rebuild. 

I tend to think we do- and I love the fact that we have two stars who have committed to Memphis for essentially their entire careers. Hopefully JJJ ends up the superstar we believe he is, and he follows that same path. 

For my part, I am thrilled that he is learning under Gasol. And if we get to the playoffs this year, all the better. Because next year he (JJJ) is going to be even better and Gasol is going to be playing for a contract. 

I don't get these people who hate on Gasol. Never have. is he perfect? of course not, but have you ever been on the houston boards and listen to them rail on Harden not playing defense, or rebounding or jacking up too many shots? There are haters in every town I guess. Grass isn't always greener. Also, I cant stand harden. LOL

I agree that having Gasol tutoring JJJ is wonderful. Hopefully Gasol will opt out of his contract and resign for longer but less money to continue that process. Conley needs some backup help and hopefully Jevon Carter can fill that role. That's 3 solid players no matter how you slice it. 

There are still major issues at SF and SG to be considered a championship contender however. Anderson and Temple are looking more like roll players than strong starters. Temple is getting old too. How the Grizzlies fill those needs with the FA money that is hopefully coming will determine how far the franchise can go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

I agree that having Gasol tutoring JJJ is wonderful. Hopefully Gasol will opt out of his contract and resign for longer but less money to continue that process. Conley needs some backup help and hopefully Jevon Carter can fill that role. That's 3 solid players no matter how you slice it. 

There are still major issues at SF and SG to be considered a championship contender however. Anderson and Temple are looking more like roll players than strong starters. Temple is getting old too. How the Grizzlies fill those needs with the FA money that is hopefully coming will determine how far the franchise can go.

Its rare that I agree with Chip twice in one week. lol

 

Yeah after a hot start some of our role players are cooling off which is causing major wear and tear on our two leaders. Really need Chancun to stop being a baby and just play through some pain or get DB back, or pick up a talented scorer via a trade for Jama or someone. 

I would love to see Jevon get a call up. I am over seing Selden make a great play followed up with 4 bonehead moves and Marshon can go back to China. IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

2014 San Antonio Free Agents: Patty Mills, Danny Green, Boris Diaw

2007 San Antonio Free Agents: Brent Barry, Michael Finley 

2005 San Antonio Free Agents: Robert Horry, Glenn Robinson, 

2003 San Antonio Free Agents: Bruce Bowen, Kevin Willis, Danny Ferry 

1999 San Antonio Free Agents: Mario Elie, Jaren Jackson (the dad), Jerome Kersey, Malik Rose

I didn't repeat players who were signed as free agents but remained with the Spurs for multiple titles either. Each time most of these players were integral to the team winning the title rather than coming close and failing. 

This is being trivial anyway. It is clear that my original point (which you seem to want to ignore completely to argue over free agent signings by the Spurs) is that going over the luxury tax isn't a precondition for an owner to want to win a title. Being responsible financially is the sign of an intelligent front office. Having an intelligent front office is vital to winning a title which I believe you agree with.

Being lucky in the lottery (and not blowing the picks), being intelligent with free agent signings and re-signing players for affordable salaries are all signs that an owner/front office is intelligent and is a requirement for winning a title. Going over the luxury tax is not.  

So why are you debating me on this issue? 

Lol. I guess you made your point. The Spurs would have never won a championship without Danny ferry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Kevin B Moses said:

Lol. I guess you made your point. The Spurs would have never won a championship without Danny ferry

Danny may have been a stretch but I understand why Pops took a chance on him with a league minimum contract. I only threw him in to show how even smart front office's make mistakes with former second picks in the draft. 

I made a solid argument otherwise. Pity you can't just admit you were wrong instead of trying to take one final attempt to discredit what was a solid position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

Danny may have been a stretch but I understand why Pops took a chance on him with a league minimum contract. I only threw him in to show how even smart front office's make mistakes with former second picks in the draft. 

I made a solid argument otherwise. Pity you can't just admit you were wrong instead of trying to take one final attempt to discredit what was a solid position. 

If you want to go by the letter of the law did the Spurs sign any free agents during the time they won their championship sure they sign some.

the point is is that sign and minimum contracts and you know players that have an established themselves in the league and going out and sign and somebody like Paul George is two different things.

The Spurs filled out their roster with those free agents they didn't win a championship with them they want to championship because they had Tim Duncan who they drafted and who played for less money.

But I guess you're right I'm wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many titles has OKC won signing Paul George? OKC traded for Paul George anyway. What has he got to do with anything we have discussed? 

Seriously, most FA signings aren't make or break deals. Miami looked into LeBron's decision and Bosh piggy-backing on it. Outside of that most teams are built from a strong foundation of draft picks. A great draft pick may enhance other players to come join them but it is a risky proposition to say the least. Will JJJ increase free agents coming to Memphis? Who knows but I kind of doubt it just like Anthony Davis hasn't been the answer to getting big league FAs to sign in New Orleans. 

It takes luck in and intelligence in drafting (not just hitting on #1 picks but also #30 (Tony Parker) and late in the 2nd round (Manu Ginobilli, Kawhi Leonard) to sustain long-term success. It takes intelligent trades that bring in players who bond with the team not tear it up (Steve Smith, Steve Kerr, Michael Finley).

It doesn't take going over the luxury tax however. That was my original point after all. So go ahead and say FA's don't matter or whatever else excuse you want to make for ignoring the fact that spending more money isn't a good indicator of whether or not an owner is trying to win titles. That was the only point I have been trying to make and you seem completely immune to understand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

How many titles has OKC won signing Paul George? OKC traded for Paul George anyway. What has he got to do with anything we have discussed? 

Seriously, most FA signings aren't make or break deals. Miami looked into LeBron's decision and Bosh piggy-backing on it. Outside of that most teams are built from a strong foundation of draft picks. A great draft pick may enhance other players to come join them but it is a risky proposition to say the least. Will JJJ increase free agents coming to Memphis? Who knows but I kind of doubt it just like Anthony Davis hasn't been the answer to getting big league FAs to sign in New Orleans. 

It takes luck in and intelligence in drafting (not just hitting on #1 picks but also #30 (Tony Parker) and late in the 2nd round (Manu Ginobilli, Kawhi Leonard) to sustain long-term success. It takes intelligent trades that bring in players who bond with the team not tear it up (Steve Smith, Steve Kerr, Michael Finley).

It doesn't take going over the luxury tax however. That was my original point after all. So go ahead and say FA's don't matter or whatever else excuse you want to make for ignoring the fact that spending more money isn't a good indicator of whether or not an owner is trying to win titles. That was the only point I have been trying to make and you seem completely immune to understand.  

my point is is when you have Tim Duncan you don't have to go out and sign of Paul George. You don't have to be desperate.

So while I think that the Spurs we're definitely smart they also had the luxury of having a top two or three player in the league for 20 years.

the reality is is that they're probably going to have to go into free agency and spend more money now because they don't have that no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kevin B Moses said:

my point is is when you have Tim Duncan you don't have to go out and sign of Paul George. You don't have to be desperate.

So while I think that the Spurs we're definitely smart they also had the luxury of having a top two or three player in the league for 20 years.

the reality is is that they're probably going to have to go into free agency and spend more money now because they don't have that no more.

I bet that isn't what they do at all. At least now while Pops is still running things. I imagine he'll go back in the lottery, find another gem and move forward. It's worked in the past after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, chipc3 said:

I bet that isn't what they do at all. At least now while Pops is still running things. I imagine he'll go back in the lottery, find another gem and move forward. It's worked in the past after all. 

agreed ... I’m putting my money on Pops - tried and true.

Given he keeps coaching... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now