Moving Forward with the Forwards

(Photo by Getty Images)

Matt over at Hardwood Paroxysm emailed me last week to ask me a simple question that has been bandied about on the message boards for quite some time. That question was this: Why not take a stab at Josh Smith? He didn't use my response in his post about the matter, which is great for me, because now I can use it here.

The Grizzlies should probably at least make a cursory call in to his agent for two reasons:

1) To drive up the price that the Hawks eventually sign him for. Nothing better than making other teams overpay for their own free agents.
2) To make the Grizzlies fanbase believe that they might have intended to spend some of their cap space this offseason, even though they have said repeatedly that they were targeting the 2009 offseason to spend it.

Now, as far as them making a legitimate play for him -- this is problematic. Since he's a restricted free agent, the Grizzlies would have had to offer him more than what the Hawks were willing to match in order to actually acquire him. Because they signed Marc Gasol already, the Grizzlies only have about $10 million in cap space for the first year of that contract, which Atlanta would almost surely match.

I don't believe that Josh Smith (or any of this year's young free agents) are max-level players, but that's the kind of contract offer it would probably take to pry any of them away from their current teams. While I'm not convinced that the trio of Antoine Walker, Hakim Warrick and Darrell Arthur will be enough to cover the Grizzlies at the PF position this year, I don't see any reason why they should overpay for Smith either, given that this team is still 2 years away from making any real noise no matter who they choose to go out and sign this offseason.

Besides, there is another possibility that most people haven't discussed. What if Smith (and Igoudala, Okafor, Deng, et al.) decide to just sign the qualifying offer and test the market next summer as unrestricted free agents? Then the market truly sets their real value, rather than having to haggle with an agent, only to see their current team match that offer, leaving you with nothing to show after putting your cap space on hold for a week. This is why the Grizzlies didn't sign Andres Nocioni or Anderson Varejao to offer sheets last year, despite serious interest in them, and instead went after Darko Milicic for a reasonable sum.

Restricted free agency is almost always a fool's gambit. You either overpay, get suckered into a bad deal via trade (Kenyon Martin to the Nuggets, Joe Johnson to the Hawks) or simply waste your time (Corey Maggette retained by Clippers after signing offer sheet with Jazz). The NBA has designed it to favor the "home team" and they certainly succeeded in that regard.

On top of that, even though the Grizzlies would be more exciting and talented if they were able to sign Smith, would they be able to compete with the Lakers, Hornets and Trail Blazers over the next few years with that core group?

Now, as I stated in the email entry above, I'm not sure that I buy into the idea of entering the season with a trio of Warrick, Walker and Arthur, but I know that I don't want Josh Smith as our starting PF for the next 4-5 seasons. I'm a big fan of Smith's style of play...as a SF. That's his natural position, after all. Last time I checked, we already had a decent small forward by the name of Rudy Gay. He needs a backup, but I don't think that's what the fans have in mind when they suggest signing Smith.

I know that a lot of Grizzlies fans (all 11 of us) get a little upset when they consider the ramifications of letting everyone know that we have no intention of making a major free agent signing this offseason, despite the fact that we are the only team with any significant cap space. It sends out a message that seems to plainly say, "we're not going to try to compete this season". I mean, that's what all the media pundits are reporting across the board anyways. I've seen that phrase, or some version of it, on no less than 5 different major media websites in the past week. But just because the Grizzlies aren't throwing cash around simply because they have it, doesn't mean that they aren't being competitive. I'm not saying that I'm on board with what the Three Year Plan represents initially, but given that this is the stated direction of the front office, we might as well accept that and look at moves that fit in with that direction.

Here is my suggestion -- and one that I believe we will be able to see in action over the next two seasons. Why don't we see what we have first? As I noted yesterday, we have two young players at 4 of the 5 positions, with SF being the only one that is without competition for the next season. Conley vs. Lowry, Mayo vs. Crittenton, Warrick vs. Arthur and Gasol vs. Milicic. What if Darrell Arthur -- a consensus Top 15 pick on nearly every reputable mock draft in existence -- turns out to be worthy of that designation, rather than displaying the talent level of where he was actually selected near the end of the 1st round? In other words, what if Arthur proves to be talented enough to be the starting PF as early as next season? Wouldn't that negate the need to go out and sign a player like Josh Smith this offseason? That should be a very realistic possibility, given that he was ranked #14 overall on the Grizzlies draft board and the #4 PF by DraftExpress.


Photo by David Dow/NBAE via Getty Images

In this piece on SI.com, Chris Mannix makes it clear that the Grizzlies front office has very high hopes for Arthur and loves the fact that he has come in with a tremendous chip on his shoulder due to the way that his draft stock plummeted needlessly, taking him from the back end of the lottery to the very end of the 1st round. After all, If D.A. can come in and use that motivation as a positive force (like Paul Pierce did regarding his draft position), then the rest of the league probably won't be laughing at the Memphis Grizzlies much longer. Check back tomorrow for what that future might look like.

Welcome back to Dunkyland!

When I got the phone call, I was sure that someone was just having some fun at my expense. "Pau Gasol traded to the Los Angeles Lakers for Kwame Brown, Javaris Crittenton and two 1st round draft picks." My initial reaction was "hey -- those salaries don't work" (yeah, I know it is pathetic that I know the salary structures for 80% of the teams in league -- quit laughing), but then I was told that they had resigned Aaron McKie to make it work. "Isn't he with the Sixers now?" Yet another sign of the ridiculousness of this trade. The Lakers traded the Sixers assistant coach to the Grizzlies. You cannot make stuff like that up.

For the next 48 hours I felt.........numb. I couldn't even begin to comprehend what had happened, so I couldn't feel anything about the trade. Well, other than a tremendous feeling of being cursed with the worst timing in the history of blogging. However, in the last two days, I have read two phenomenal viewpoints of the trade that have made me see just what this trade really means for Memphis. The first one was Pete Pranica's post on Grizz Blogs. The second was Hardwood Paroxysm's account of the trade. Slowly, I began to see the sun peeking through the clouds.

So now I am left at a crossroads. On the one hand, the Gasol trade has left the Grizzlies with cap space for the upcoming offseason (estimated $10-15 million), an additional draft pick for a great talent evaluator in Chris Wallace to use and a young player with good potential in Javaris Crittenton. They will be able to rebuild this team from the ground up, using Mike Conley and Rudy Gay as the foundation, with Darko Milicic and Crittenton as key players. Then you factor in two more young players with potential in the draft this summer and the talent level of this team going forward should increase dramatically.

It sounds like they won't use their cap space this offseason, given that this isn't a particularly enticing unrestricted free agent crop to pair with a group of young athletic players, preferring to roll it over to the 2009 offseason, where there are a lot of attractive FA's of the "right age". Factor in another 18 months of growth/maturity for Conley/Gay/Darko and this team could improve by leaps and bounds. So there is reason to have hope for the future of this franchise, including a return to the postseason as soon as the 2009/10 season.

On the other hand, this move was obviously business first, basketball a distant second. Even though it is mostly being reported that Chris Wallace pitched the idea to owner Michael Heisley, this one has Heisley grimy little fingerprints all over it. Wallace has been in print and on the radio several times this season saying that he did not want an expiring contract to be the central piece in return for either Gasol or Mike Miller in a trade. Lo and behold, what did he say about the acquisition of Kwame Brown? "He was the biggest expiring deal we could get." Now, I'm familiar with GM speak and know it when I see it. This 180 degree turnaround did not seem like a case of GM speak. Rather, it seems more likely that it was a directive from Heisley to Wallace -- not the other way around.

If that is the case, then this trade was a salary dump, plain and simple. If this is nothing more than a way to lower the outstanding contracts on the team to make it easier for Heisley to either sell the team to an outside group or to force the local group of minority owners to meet his asking price, then Memphis fans have been duped and taken advantage of as pawns. Pawns who shelled out money for a team that they expected to be competitive this year, even if they weren't expecting a return to the playoffs. Now they get to watch a team that has 13 wins so far and probably won't match last year's total of 22 victories. Not only is that a hard pill to swallow, it is an even harder sell for the sales/marketing staff. As Geoff Calkins pointed out in his column Saturday, can you imagine what that sales call will be like? It won't be pretty, I can assure you. This team didn't draw well when they were making the postseason and actively trying to get better. How low will attendance drop now that the rest of this season is a foregone conclusion and next year won't be much better? When does the attendace clause of the team's lease actually go into effect? (Speaking of attendance, Mark Cuban says get off your butt and do something if your attendance sucks.)

So while I would love to go along with the idea that this was a move made with the team's best interests in mind, if I have learned one thing in life, it is that rich, powerful people usually get what they want. Michael Heisley is a billionaire, so he gets what he wants and then takes the rest. If the team resurrects itself over the next two or three seasons, then I'll accept that Heisley is not, in fact, the Anti-Christ. If he uses this move as leverage to sell the team to a group like the Brian Davis-led flunkies who only have enough money to buy the team and nothing more, then I'm starting a blog dedicated to trashing Heisley. Either way, only time will tell what is to come for this team.

Welcome back to Dunkyland!

Rebuilding: Building A Contender vs. Blowing It Up

As this disappointing season continues its slow march towards another lottery pick, fans of the Memphis Grizzlies have divided into two camps regarding the future of the team. On one side, you have fans who wish to completely blow up the team, keeping only Rudy Gay, Mike Conley and perhaps Kyle Lowry. One of those fans writes for this very blog under the name MemphisX. I respect his opinion and understand his reasoning for wanting to see the team revamp itself. However, as anyone who has read my posts here or on the Grizzlies message board can attest, I am a member of the other group, which wishes to see this team built up, rather than blown up. My plan would be to build around Rudy/Conley as well, but while keeping Pau Gasol and either Mike Miller or Juan Carlos Navarro, but probably not both. With some help from ChipC3, I think I have compiled some evidence that this is possible and would be in the best interests of the team's chances for future success.

The impetus for this post came about after reading Tom Ziller's great article on Ballhype, that is best described as a study of the relationship between a team's average age and win totals. In the article, Ziller splits the results according to 4 categories: Good, Bad, Young and Old. Then the teams are placed on a simple graph to see how they line up. The Grizzlies not-so-surprisingly fall into the "Bad" category for the past season and a half. However, they also qualify for the "Young" designation, given that their average age is 25.3 -- 24.9 if you don't include non-contributor Brian Cardinal. With Damon Stoudamire on the team, the average age was still only 26, well within the "Young" range. It is Ziller's contention that it is acceptable to be Bad and Young, but being Bad and Old is the "no man's land" that should lead teams to blow things up and start over. The Miami Heat are the ultimate example of this theory according to TZ.

Keep reading....

Rebuilding: Building A Contender vs. Blowing It Up

As this disappointing season continues its slow march towards another lottery pick, fans of the Memphis Grizzlies have divided into two camps regarding the future of the team. On one side, you have fans who wish to completely blow up the team, keeping only Rudy Gay, Mike Conley and perhaps Kyle Lowry. One of those fans writes for this very blog under the name MemphisX. I respect his opinion and understand his reasoning for wanting to see the team revamp itself. However, as anyone who has read my posts here or on the Grizzlies message board can attest, I am a member of the other group, which wishes to see this team built up, rather than blown up. My plan would be to build around Rudy/Conley as well, but while keeping Pau Gasol and either Mike Miller or Juan Carlos Navarro, but probably not both. With some help from ChipC3, I think I have compiled some evidence that this is possible and would be in the best interests of the team's chances for future success.

The impetus for this post came about after reading Tom Ziller's great article on Ballhype, that is best described as a study of the relationship between a team's average age and win totals. In the article, Ziller splits the results according to 4 categories: Good, Bad, Young and Old. Then the teams are placed on a simple graph to see how they line up. The Grizzlies not-so-surprisingly fall into the "Bad" category for the past season and a half. However, they also qualify for the "Young" designation, given that their average age is 25.3 -- 24.9 if you don't include non-contributor Brian Cardinal. With Damon Stoudamire on the team, the average age was still only 26, well within the "Young" range. It is Ziller's contention that it is acceptable to be Bad and Young, but being Bad and Old is the "no man's land" that should lead teams to blow things up and start over. The Miami Heat are the ultimate example of this theory according to TZ.

Since the article focused on the unprecedented success the very young Portland Trailblazers are experiencing this year, I decided to email TZ and see how this truly related to our own Memphis Grizzlies and see what his opinion was regarding whether or not this team should look to "blow it up" by trading Pau Gasol, Mike Miller or both. Here is the exchange:

Spartacus: Loved your post dealing with average team age in relation to wins. I know the focus of it was the success of Portland and the need for both the Heat and Clippers to rebuild, but how do you think it applies to the Grizzlies? A majority of fans are ready to go even younger (even though Damon got bought out and Cardinal rarely plays, making the average age very young already) by trading away both Pau Gasol and Mike Miller. In your opinion, should the Grizzlies "wait-and-see" if this team comes together and what they get in the draft? Or should they get rid of one or both of their higher paid veterans?

TZ: Memphis has been able to stay pretty young, probably owed to Conley/Lowry instead of Stoudamire/Atkins. The thing with Gasol and Miller: They aren't that old. (Miller always seems older than he is.) It really depends on how close Wallace and Iavaroni thinks the team is. I'd argue 'not close at all' -- Gay's been stupendous and Gasol's had a good recovery, and they still aren't winning regularly. Given Gasol's age, the team can afford to wait longer than almost everyone else, about four years. There are no guarantees, but you'd assume Conley and Gay will continue to improve, and Pau's not a player who'd be tragically cut short by a slight loss in athleticism. Do you think Miller's blocking Navarro? That'd be the only reason I'd rush a Miller trade; otherwise, wait until you get something real good for him. He'll have value until he
retires, everyone loves him.

In other words, Ziller sees no reason to trade either player in respect to their age or abilities, given the level of younger talent that will only get better in Conley and Gay. Of course, there are many fans who say that the team needs to change the culture of losing by shaking things up and trading one or both of their veteran players who have been with the team for quite some time. The notion of making a deal simply for the sake of making a deal appeals to them, because they believe that it will jumpstart this team and lead to a return to the postseason. To those people, I have some numbers for you: 3, 5, 57 and 7. That is 3, as in 3 GM's; 5, as in 5 coaches; 57, as in 57 players that have worn a Memphis Grizzlies jersey; 7, as in the 7 years the team has been in Memphis. If anything, this team needs less drastic change, not more.

I believe that part of this "make a change now" mindset is due to a certain level of unrealistic expectations for this season. How many fans (and even so-called experts) drew parallels between this team and the 50-win team of 2003/04? How many more fans called for the Grizzlies to double their win total of 22 last season? In fact, there is even a thread on the Grizzlies message board right now comparing this team to that groundbreaking squad that was the first in Grizzlies history to make the postseason. I typed up a response for that thread and then decided that it was more suited to this post.

Rather than compare the 03/04 squad to this year's team, why not see how the 03/04 team compared to the 02/03 team. That team won a then-team record 28 games under new coach Hubie Brown. That team had a "contributor's list" of the following players:

Pau Gasol
Jason Williams
Drew Gooden -> Mike Miller (mid-season trade)
Lorenzen Wright
Gordan Giricek
Wesley Person
Shane Battier
Stromile Swift
Earl Watson
Mike Batiste
Brevin Knight

The following year, here are the contributing players who made the playoffs:

Pau Gasol
Jason Williams
Mike Miller
Lorenzen Wright
Wesley Person -> Bonzi Wells (early season trade)
Shane Battier
Stromile Swift
Earl Watson
James Posey (free agent signing)
Bo Outlaw (offseason trade)

As you can see, the list is fairly similar in both accounts, and is as large as it is due to Hubie Brown's 10-man rotation, which got more players involved than the typical 8-man rotation most coaches use would have. Now let's look at the contributors for this year's team:

Pau Gasol
Rudy Gay
Mike Miller
Darko Milicic
Kyle Lowry
Mike Conley
Juan Carlos Navarro
Hakim Warrick
Damon Stoudamire
Stromile Swift

Since Damon has been waived, we can already discount him being here next season, as well as Stro as he has been placed on the trade block following his one game suspension. That leaves the Grizzlies with 8 guys who have an average age of 24. They will add a young player to that mix with their lottery pick this summer, dropping the average even further. I think that the last thing this team needs to do right now is to make a deal with the intention of getting younger. Young teams are bad -- just look at Seattle and Minnesota. Younger teams with a few key veterans can be good -- witness Portland and New Orleans.

Speaking of Portland, MemphisX recently had a post that compared the moves Portland made to the deals he would like to see Chris Wallace make in Memphis. The key to his post was the comparison of Portland trading away a proven 20/10 player in Zach Randolph while only getting a role player (Channing Frye) and a big contract (Steve Francis) in return, effectively netting them very little. Well, while the fans might be tired of Gasol's consistent production, the front office and coaching staff probably don't view him the same way that the coaching staff and team viewed Z-Bo, which is to say that, in no uncertain terms, Randolph was a cancer and a detriment to the team. Moving him for the proverbial ham sandwich was one of the cases where "addition by subtraction" truly took place. To take the Portland/Memphis parallel even further, last year was Nate McMillan's first year and the Blazers were not good, which netted them a high lottery pick for the second year in a row. This is Marc Iavaroni's first season and the Grizzlies will receive a high lottery pick and have already moved one piece that didn't fit this particular puzzle (Damon) and are looking to move another (Stro). Also, even though they traded Randolph, they didn't make wholesale changes from last season to this season. Here is the comparison of their 9-man rotation from the past two years:

06/07 ---- 07/08
Brandon Roy - Brandon Roy
LaMarcus Aldridge - LaMarcus Aldridge
Jarrett Jack - Jarrett Jack
Travis Outlaw - Travis Outlaw
Zach Randolph - Channing Frye
Martell Webster - Martell Webster
Juan Dixon - Steve Blake
Ime Udoka - James Jones
Jamaal Magloire - Joel Przybilla

For those of you counting at home, that is one starter changed and two new role players via a trade (Jones) and a free agent signing (Blake returning to Portland), as Przybilla was already on the roster, albeit injured for a good portion of last season. In other words, most of the wholesale changes that Portland made were made over a few seasons. That includes parting ways with Rasheed Wallace, Damon Stoudamire, Ruben Patterson and the rest of the problem children (perceived or otherwise) that earned them the moniker "JailBlazers" after years of faithful support from their fanbase. The argument can be made that the Grizzlies got rid of their problem children when they made the moves in the offseason of 2005 that saw the departures of Jason Williams, Bonzi Wells and James Posey. They took a slight detour in doing so by loading up with older veterans, but appear to be well on their way to building a solid core (Conley/Gay/Gasol) that should be the focal point of a perennial playoff team for years to come.


From a basketball standpoint, I see no reason to trade Gasol. He doesn't have to dominate the ball to be effective or efficient. He's one of the better low-post scorers in the game and is one of the best passing big man as well. While his detractors point to his lack of a killer instinct and his failures in the postseason, if he is the 2nd or 3rd option that suddenly doesn't matter nearly as much does it? The will also say that he's a max contract player who isn't the best player on the team. To that I respond: Andrei Kirilenko, Shawn Marion, Ray Allen, a Net (whomever you want to tab in New Jersey of Kidd/Carter/Jefferson), Rashard Lewis, Lamar Odom and Tracy McGrady. They all are or have been on playoff teams and are not currently the best player on their respective teams. Just because the organization is no longer building around Gasol as the cornerstone doesn't mean that he's been relegated to the trash heap in my honest evaluation.


From a business standpoint, the reason I hear to trade Gasol is that the fans have soured on him and won't return as long as he's on the team. My response to that is this: Poppycock. When the team starts winning again, the fans will return regardless of who is on the roster.


This fanbase wants to support the team, but the story of "too much, too soon" regarding their meteoric rise spoiled them (more on that in a later blog) and their level of expectations became less than realistic. That is what has contributed to the dissatisfaction with Pau more than his insistence on playing for his national team, more than his incredulous faces when protesting a call or lack thereof, more than his max contract without having the ability to lead this team. People expected too much and thus fell victim to their own unreached standards. If the front office decides to "blow it up" by trading Gasol and Miller and only receives young players, expiring contracts and draft picks in return and not a "proven commodity", then it will be another 3 years before this team is ready for a return to the postseason. By that time, contract extensions will be due for some big time contributors and the Grizzlies will find themselves in the same position the Bulls have been in for the past few seasons and will have the same difficult choices to make. You cannot keep a young team together for a long run -- the salary cap makes it impossible to do. Staggering salaries and ages allow a team the flexibility to keep players around that are vital while changing the role players around them as necessary, as we have seen with Detroit and San Antonio. Those are the two teams that this organization should model itself after in my opinion. Whether or not that means trading Pau Gasol, Mike Miller or anyone else remains to be seen. I for one believe that the benefits of keeping a player of Gasol's caliber and giving a team time to develop chemistry are the key factors in long term success for the Memphis Grizzlies. Time will tell which camp is correct though.

The Future of the Memphis Grizzlies: Business vs. Basketball

What is the future of NBA basketball in Memphis?

Don't worry -- this isn't one of those doomsday pieces that proclaims that the Grizzlies will be moving next year to Las Vegas, Kansas City, St. Louis or whever else that uninformed people conjure up as a viable relocation site. No, this is going to be a frank look at what the only "big time" pro sports franchise in Memphis needs to do to stay here beyond the city's lease with them.

The idea for this sprang from the dissatisfaction that rained down on franchise player Pau Gasol on Wednesday night from the meager gathering of fans at the FedEx Forum. It was originally going to be a frank look at whether or not it was truly time to part ways with the talented Spaniard. Then I decided that the issue was much larger than the presence or absence of just one player. We will start with Gasol though, as he is one of the lynchpins that is holding this convoluted mess together right now. Right now, fans are voicing their displeasure with him (and the team) by booing him during games and by staying away from games en masse. While the first part is troubling, it is understandable. The second part though, is more than just troubling -- it is an issue that has to be addressed and rectified. The team cannot survive in Memphis without fan support.

Is Pau the problem? This is his 7th season in Memphis and he has been the best player every single season. However, as has been noted before, he is better suited to being the #2 option on a consistent playoff contender. Grizzlies fans long ago soured on him being the man who would lead them to the Promised Land -- have they now given up on him being suited up in Beale Street Blue altogether? If that is truly the case and the emergence of Rudy Gay, as well as the potential of Michael Conley are no longer enough to persuade fans to come out to games or that Pau can be a vital part of future success, then he must be moved....and soon. From a business perspective, if something is obviously negatively affecting attendance, then that issue should be dealt with ASAP. Last year, it resulted in the firing of Mike Fratello -- this year it could be the trade of Pau. As Geoff Calkins noted and Gary Parrish recently told me, trading Pau could be the "shake-up move" that puts the team on the right path to title contention. For the record, I still believe that a trio of Rudy/Conley/Pau can contend with the right pieces around them -- namely a defensive stopper at SG (think Raja Bell) and a big man that looks a lot like Darko on his good nights. So, from a basketball standpoint, I think it makes sense to keep him unless presented with an obviously beneficial offer from another team, which means more than Chicago's package of Nocioni/Thomas/draft pick from where I sit. In any case, it is blindingly apparent that something needs to happen to change the perception that this team is adrift with no heading.

That brings me to the next player -- Mike Miller. I've advocated having the former Sixth Man of the Year return to that role, with either Tarence Kinsey (preseason) or Juan Carlos Navarro taking the starting role at SG. I think having his size and scoring ability off the bench at two positions (SG/SF) gives the team greater flexibility. Also, that has always helped to mask his deficiencies as a defender, while maximizing his abilities and strengths. Miller is one of those guys that is a fan favorite wherever he plays, but is also the source of constant criticism from fans who want him to be more than what he is, which is a fantastic role player who doesn't have a defined role as a starter. If the Grizzlies can have him return to his role off the bench, then I'd love to keep him around for the next 4-5 years. Otherwise, I'd have no problem moving him for a shot-blocking big man (is Marcus Camby still available?), a defensive minded SG (Mickael Pietrus, Ronnie Brewer) or a young talented player not currently being afforded playing time (Thabo Sefolosha and Ime Udoka come to mind). I'll even admit that Tom Ziller's piece this preseason might not have been as off-target as I originally thought, although I still shudder to think about trading Miller for an expiring contract and/or a draft pick. This would definitely be classified as a basketball decision, as I don't believe that Miller's play/contract/presence is keeping many fans away.

Other obvious basketball decisions would be the trade of Damon Stoudamire once Conley proves to be healthy and ready to start and the trade of either Stromile Swift (opt-out clause for this offseason) or Hakim Warrick (solid on offense, subpar in nearly everything else), perhaps both of them if a big name could be procured. I realize that Hak has a lot of fans, but he's too skinny to be a PF, doesn't have the skills to play SF and has proven to be mostly one-dimensional to this point in his career. That would not be a bad thing if one plans to be a role player off the bench for an entire career, but unless you're a perimeter player who can score in bunches like Ben Gordon, it isn't going to have too many people excited about paying you a big salary or making you an integral part of their team. These are all moves that should be made prior to the trade deadline, if at all possible.

In my opinion, the most important thing to impart unto fans is not just hope, but something that shows them the direction of the team, a move or statement that gives them tangible evidence that this organization has a plan and will follow through with it. That could mean the trade of Damon and Stro or something far more significant, such as the trade of Mike or Pau. This organization has to establish a plan for the future and let the fanbase know what that plan is. Otherwise, we will all be witness to the self-fulfilling prophecy that is the current state of things, where would-be fans sit around and say "I'm not going to invest time in this team, because they will be leaving town". Well, if you don't support the team, then they will leave eventually. Not tomorrow, not next year and not before the lease is up, but they will leave if there isn't enough support for them. I could preach about the importance of Michael Heisley selling to the local owners, about what the organization needs to do in terms of marketing and sales or about why the loss of Andy Dolich could very well be the first coffin nail. I still believe that what the team does on the court matters more than any of those other things though. When a team wins consistently, gets better each season and makes strides towards being a title contender, the fans will support it, whether the team calls Memphis home, or San Antonio, Sacramento, Toronto or Charlotte. When that happens, petty complaints about concessions, dance teams, ticket prices, location of block parties and halftime shows seem to subside to the point of extinction, as watching a winning team becomes the reason to show up to the arena. Trade Gasol or don't, trade Miller or don't, trade whomever or don't -- once the 50-game evaluation period is up, this team needs to make some moves and be clear about their direction before it digs itself too big a hole to climb out of with its fanbase.