Sign in to follow this  
Grizzled Vet

Grizzlies/NBA Free Agency Thread

Recommended Posts

Im going to have to say the more I think about it the more I think Josh Jackson wont make it. They will probably just cut him. Just a hunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, toocoolkellz said:

None of these guys are going to be traded unless we give up assets and I doubt this fo adds that to trades.  Plumlee and Hill onky chance at trades are expirings at the deadline.  Howard is still productive but has a bad image.  He's in the same boat. Iggy is probably the only vet they're trying to unload. 

This, Hill Howard and Rabb most likely just cut

Share this post


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

Im going to have to say the more I think about it the more I think Josh Jackson wont make it. They will probably just cut him. Just a hunch.

Why?   If he stays out of trouble, gets to practice on time and competes on court then why not give him a chance?   It would be silly to cut a guy this young with that much potential.  Unless he should up to first meeting hungover then i say give him a chance. 

Share this post


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

Why?   If he stays out of trouble, gets to practice on time and competes on court then why not give him a chance?   It would be silly to cut a guy this young with that much potential.  Unless he should up to first meeting hungover then i say give him a chance. 

If. But so far he has been a no show which is bad. Get the feeling that he cant be reached and he hasnt been humbled yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dwash said:

If. But so far he has been a no show which is bad. Get the feeling that he cant be reached and he hasnt been humbled yet.

Do we know he has been a no show?  Could it be something where he is trying to get his legal issue settled first?  Honestly, i don't know and am asking. 

Share this post


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

Do we know he has been a no show?  Could it be something where he is trying to get his legal issue settled first?  Honestly, i don't know and am asking. 

Maybe idk but he seems like an immature person. Getting 5 month old babies high. He has to turn it around fast and typically 22 is not the age where a very immature person suddenly gets it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Howard or vets are not moved early,  the vets will be benched to give young players time.  Vets can't play too much so they can get traded by all star break.  

A lot of losses, small crowds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dwash said:

If. But so far he has been a no show which is bad. Get the feeling that he cant be reached and he hasnt been humbled yet.

Assume much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CoolHandGriz said:

Assume much?

Yeah. I pretty much said this was all a hunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the original plan was to buyout Parsons...and instead we traded him for smaller yet equally unmoveable contracts...and we don't get any takers for Plumlee or Hill, which we most likely won't... then maybe they should just waive them like they probably would've done with Parsons had ATL not made the trade. Let's face it, Howard at 5 million is better to have on the team than Plumlee at 12 million any day of the week

ANY sign of trouble, locker room problems, antics, whatever, then just waive Howard.  Same goes for Jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cdp said:

If the original plan was to buyout Parsons...and instead we traded him for smaller yet equally unmoveable contracts...and we don't get any takers for Plumlee or Hill, which we most likely won't... then maybe they should just waive them like they probably would've done with Parsons had ATL not made the trade. Let's face it, Howard at 5 million is better to have on the team than Plumlee at 12 million any day of the week

ANY sign of trouble, locker room problems, antics, whatever, then just waive Howard.  Same goes for Jackson.

I think you're correct. Howard is a better player on a better contract than Plumlee. It just makes sense to keep him. I don't think we would have taken that trade had we done the Howard one first as I assume that Plumlee was just for depth. 

Share this post


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

If the original plan was to buyout Parsons...and instead we traded him for smaller yet equally unmoveable contracts...and we don't get any takers for Plumlee or Hill, which we most likely won't... then maybe they should just waive them like they probably would've done with Parsons had ATL not made the trade. Let's face it, Howard at 5 million is better to have on the team than Plumlee at 12 million any day of the week

ANY sign of trouble, locker room problems, antics, whatever, then just waive Howard.  Same goes for Jackson.

I don't think the two smaller parts are 'equally' unmovable,  the could be used as filler in a trade, and hill may be absolute worthless but Plumlee might be a serviceable 4th or 5th big on a tanking/development team, one less body to sign if they don't see a young player worth developing... plus we all know Chandler was a side story that would probably turn into a distraction that a first time first year head coach doesn't need, a first year HC prolly needs about as much of a drama free locker room as you can muster, anyway theres my big post of the day, carry on :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CoolHandGriz said:

Why are they problems? We are most likely done on the free agent market this year, are under the luxury tax and can waive either one if we really needed a roster spot..

I know thats what you can do, but what WILL the FO do, theyve never paid out contracts of that size before, and I'd be surprised if they did now. Especially Iguodala, who would be picked up by a multitude of suitors waiting for exactly that move

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, cdp said:

If the original plan was to buyout Parsons...and instead we traded him for smaller yet equally unmoveable contracts...and we don't get any takers for Plumlee or Hill, which we most likely won't... then maybe they should just waive them like they probably would've done with Parsons had ATL not made the trade. Let's face it, Howard at 5 million is better to have on the team than Plumlee at 12 million any day of the week

ANY sign of trouble, locker room problems, antics, whatever, then just waive Howard.  Same goes for Jackson.

Plumlee still costs $12M whether he's on the team or not if you're talking about waivers.  I don't see how it would be better with him not being there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cdp said:

If the original plan was to buyout Parsons...and instead we traded him for smaller yet equally unmoveable contracts...and we don't get any takers for Plumlee or Hill, which we most likely won't... then maybe they should just waive them like they probably would've done with Parsons had ATL not made the trade. Let's face it, Howard at 5 million is better to have on the team than Plumlee at 12 million any day of the week

ANY sign of trouble, locker room problems, antics, whatever, then just waive Howard.  Same goes for Jackson.

yeah lets just hand out millions like its XMas candy.

Who is the source for saying Parsons was going to be bought out, and what was the payout arrangement? 

I just dont see this FO and this owner handing out millions for nothing. If you're talking waiving Iguodala Hill and Howard that is more than Parsons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ace-is-high said:

I don't think the two smaller parts are 'equally' unmovable,  the could be used as filler in a trade, and hill may be absolute worthless but Plumlee might be a serviceable 4th or 5th big on a tanking/development team, one less body to sign if they don't see a young player worth developing... plus we all know Chandler was a side story that would probably turn into a distraction that a first time first year head coach doesn't need, a first year HC prolly needs about as much of a drama free locker room as you can muster, anyway theres my big post of the day, carry on :)

 

Yeah, if Plumlee wasn't signed, some other stiff would have been, so at least he's playable.

Certainly overpaid, but at least some of his contract is usable. Unlike Parsons.

 

I'm still fine going into camp with Hill, Howard, and Plumlee as they all have to know this is their last opportunity to stick around the NBA, and it's like a Survivor show.  At some point, the one who is not playing hard is sent home, and possibly a 2nd or all will be too.

 

I'm really OK starting the season with Iggy.  He'll be professional and at some point, teams like Utah, Portland, Houston, etc will realize they don't have SFs who can cover Paul George, Kawhi, or LeBron.  They can wait for the buyout, or they can control the situation.

Share this post


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

If all 3 of those players you mentioned were to be sent home then what would be the point in getting rid of Iggy?

The only point to get rid of Iggy is to acquire future assets/draft picks.  I don't think he should be bought out.

He'd be the last of those 4 guys I'd buy out, and Hill would probably be first because of the position breakdowns.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If DAL wants Iggy, I think FO should instead ask for Justin Jackson + future 2nd round pick and create another 14M trade exception for future use. But there could very well be other better trade options from other teams. The DAL rumored trade proposal is just a starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, VikingWarrior said:

Wow Oubre 2/30... 

Yeah.... I'm surprised at the amount and length of the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, VikingWarrior said:

Wow Oubre 2/30... 

 

33 minutes ago, CarloJ63 said:

Yeah.... I'm surprised at the amount and length of the contract.

Actually this is a good deal for us, if FO really like Oubre and the Suns continue to fail like they use to, we might be in position to sign  him 2 years from now, special if he is not a RFA, and maybe with a discount if he dont play throw that contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Grizzled Vet said:

The only point to get rid of Iggy is to acquire future assets/draft picks.  I don't think he should be bought out.

He'd be the last of those 4 guys I'd buy out, and Hill would probably be first because of the position breakdowns.  

Neither do I, I thought Dwash was way off track about buying Iggy out from the get go. People talking about it would make the Grizz look bad for not buying him out was just BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cdp said:

If the original plan was to buyout Parsons...and instead we traded him for smaller yet equally unmoveable contracts...and we don't get any takers for Plumlee or Hill, which we most likely won't... then maybe they should just waive them like they probably would've done with Parsons had ATL not made the trade. Let's face it, Howard at 5 million is better to have on the team than Plumlee at 12 million any day of the week

ANY sign of trouble, locker room problems, antics, whatever, then just waive Howard.  Same goes for Jackson.

Plumlee isn't going to be a problem in the locker room he isn't gonna get upset with limited minutes Howard will and he's hurt half the time anyway no need to keep him. I could see the FO holding on to Howard and try and move him to a contender who have a young player they aren't using. But they can buy him out too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LuvThem Grizzlies said:

Neither do I, I thought Dwash was way off track about buying Iggy out from the get go. People talking about it would make the Grizz look bad for not buying him out was just BS.

No obviously if he can be traded for something, do it. Im not keeping Iggy here and making him play if he doesnt want to and cant be dealt. That was the argument.

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
Sign in to follow this