Grading the Josh Smith Signing

By Chip, Josh and Kirk

Or how does this move by the Grizzlies help the team in the 3 Year Plan?

Michael Heisley said after the big trade to acquire O.J. Mayo back in late June that all moves by the Grizzlies from this point forward should be viewed in regards to the Grizzlies established Three Year Plan (TYP). Since then the team has signed Marc Gasol to a 3 year contract for a relatively small amount of money. That move clearly sits well in regards to a 3 year plan. They have been rumored to be involved in trade discussions with Orlando, New York, Atlanta, New Jersey and a host of other teams but nothing has come of those rumors as of yet.

Then there was the one definitive move of signing Josh Smith, an unrestricted free agent of the Altanta Hawks to a 5 year deal for a reported $58 million. Once the Hawks received the offer they immediately matched the offer and therefore locked up Josh Smith with the team for at least one year. How should fans judge this move in regards to the TYP?

3 Shades of Blue asked this question to each of our writers. Only three responded which should give you an idea of how much editorial clout people have on this site. So in opposite order of seniority here are thier opinions.

Kirk:
Well, in my honest and humble opinion, losing Josh Smith hurt, but we were all aware from the first moment that Atlanta would match the offer sheet we signed him to. Signing Josh Smith would have been fantastic for both the team and the franchise in general, but with the low ball offer we gave him, we all knew it was nothing but a pipedream at best. Josh Smith would have given us the athletic 4 we have been so desperately needing, as well as given Rudy an upcoming star to be paired with. If Conley and Mayo develop the way they should, and according to plan, then you would have an extremely formidable 1-4 that could compete with any other in the league. Then you could plug any stiff you deem appropriate at the 5 spot, and his assignment should be nothing more than shot blocking, setting picks, and clogging the lane.

Honestly, not signing Josh Smith really has no effect on the "3 year plan", because according to it, we are trying to build a team that can compete by that time. We still have 3 years left.... I will reserve judgement till after the offseaon following this basketball season, and see if the team has improved both on the court, and on paper as well. Who knows, with another strong draft and sound decisions in free agency, we truly could have the type of team Mr. Heisley is hoping for.

All I can say is the kool-aid sure is delicious, so we should all start drinking it.

Chip Crain:
I think the signing of Josh Smith was a great public relations move but little else. As Kirk already stated, there was little chance that Atlanta wouldn't match the offer. Josh Smith is an up and coming star in this league along the lines of Andre Iguodala, Luol Deng and Monta Ellis. Each of those players resigned with their teams for far more money than the Grizzlies offered Smith. It was a pipe dream to assume Atlanta would allow Smith to leave with no compensation. It did however get people around the country in general and Memphis in particular to start thinking that Heisley wasn't solely interested in running the cheapest operation in the league.

Since public relations are not a component of making a team competitive for the playoffs that bit of emotional lift does nothing in regards to the team's 3 year plan. What it did do is take off the market a player who the Grizzlies could have tried to sign next summer with their free cap space. By offering him the contract and having it matched by Atlanta, Josh Smith won't be a free agent for 5 more years. 5 years is outside of the 3 year time frame Heisley established. Even if the Grizzlies couldn't sign Smith next summer that is one fewer player for other teams to use their cap space.

So if we are only judging the signing in a three year window it would seem that this hurt the team.

Joshua Coleman:
Before the signing took place, I made my feelings about Josh Smith quite clear. In the time since then, we've learned that Smith showed up in Atlanta more muscular and physically imposing, appearing ready to play the position of PF. And you know what? Doesn't change my opinion a great deal, even though I rate him more highly as on the "Big Change Capability Potential Meter" as a result of those physical improvements. (Yeah, I just made that up, by the way.)

So, how does his signing affect the much ballyhooed TYP? Well, as has already been noted, it received some good publicity on many fronts, although there were plenty of people who viewed it as nothing more than an obvious PR move in which the Grizzlies had no intention of having Josh Smith in Beale Street Blue. With the tumultuous nature of things in the ATL, I don't know how anyone could think that there wasn't at least a chance that the Hawks might let Smith go. But ultimately, that didn't have any effect on the TYP. I believe that Smith's presence in Memphis would have resulted in more wins this year, as well as the next two after that, but not enough to justify his salary. Just my opinion, of course, but Smith seems like another Shawn Marion or Andrei Kirilenko to me -- great team players who provide eye-popping stats on a nightly basis, but aren't #1 options, or even guys that you really concentrate on running plays for. I think that signing Smith would have been a detriment to the goal of the TYP, as it would have placed the Grizzlies further back in the lottery next season, which is where they are most likely to find the top talent needed to help them return to the postseason at the conclusion of the TYP. In this respect, cheaper talent (Hak, D.Arthur, new draftees) would be better than higher priced free agent talent.

About that Zach for Darko/Marko Deal . . .

by Lee Eric Smith

Lots of linkety-links, mostly from NY Media . . .

Newsday: Darko would welcome a trade.
TheKnicksBlog: Grizz want a first rounder.
RealGM Message Boards (via translation): Darko's "99 percent sure" he'll be a Knick by Friday.
Newsday Blog: Zach expects to be with Grizzlies this fall.

I know we're just Memphis, smallest NBA market, dealing with NY, the NBA's Biggest, but all I keep hearing about is why NY wants to unload Zach. . . . kind of an addition by subtraction thing.

What I haven't heard is: Why are we doing this trade?

I get it, Zach is a veteran 20-10 guy, a complete bull in the post, and we need somebody we can throw the ball to when the game slows down. And maybe that's all that needs to be said. But somehow, that doesn't seem like enough.

Upgrade? Look at it this way: NBA analysts all over the net are considering Darko a mild UPGRADE in New York, or at least a better fit. Now think about how the consensus on Darko is that he's a bust, and maybe you understand my concern. Why would Donnie Walsh trade a proven 20-10 guy for a promising, but still unproven Darko? Who's really getting fleeced here?

If Zach Don't Fit in NY: Given that Iavaroni wants to run just as much as D'Antoni in NY, and Z-Bo "doesn't fit" in D'Antoni's system, it begs the question of how Z would fit in Memphis.

Defense. Zach's not known for it; Kevin O'Neill will DEMAND IT. If we're trying to IMPROVE defense, why trade our best shot blocker? And do you think there would be chaos in the locker room if O'Neill jumped down Z-Bo's throat for missing an assignment? What would that do to chemistry? Would Zach run over Iavaroni?

What do we already have? Granted Hak is skinny and 'Toine is older, but Hak put up respectable numbers at the 4 in about 23 minutes, as did 'Toine in 19. I'm not saying that either of them is as good as Zach, but together, their production could conceivably add up to Z-Bo's -- without giving up an improving big man in Darko. Besides, if neither Zach nor Hak (hey, a rhyme) are going to play defense at the 4, I'd rather go with the young gun, who probably fits better with our running, swarming style (I hope . . . for both the style and Hak's fit).

The Knucklehead Factor. It's been said that both Zach and 'Toine can be knuckleheads. If that's true, in my mind, the tie goes to the one with the ring: Antoine Walker. He won a championship with Miami in 2006, and has more playoff wins than Zach. Plus, he's adapting to his now-and-future role as an aging player: backup to the younger players -- Hak and Darrell.

Paper. Ah yes, the money. Z-Bo's contract is the same as Pau's was, even expires at the same time (I think). Granted Z is tougher and meaner than Pau, no question, but I'm not sure how he fits the 3YP.

Proposed deal makes SOME basketball sense, little financial sense (unless they hold out for the draft pick), and almost NO "chemistry" sense. . . . to me, anyway. So . . .

Why are we doing this again?

If you got answers, please explain below . . .

Because I'm Just Crazy Enough To Think It Could Work

Most of the news surrounding the Grizzlies right now is about Darrell Arthur's mistake in a hotel room or the possibility of Zach Randolph donning Beale Street Blue this season. I think that we've covered the first one pretty well, and I don't even want to think about the second one. But the potential Randolph deal did get me to thinking about another issue facing the Grizzlies. If they deal Darko & Marko to NYC, then the Grizzlies have 2 rookie C's, 4 PF's and still no backup SF (unless Greg Buckner plays out of position). That will also mean that the Grizzlies go from 13 players under contract down to 12. That opens up some possibilities.

I thought about moving Antoine Walker over to backup SF, given that he has played that position quite a lot over his career. But even then, the team will still have to sign at least one more player -- probably two. Obviously, one of those players will have to be a veteran center, given that Marc Gasol and Hamed Haddadi have played a combined ZERO minutes in the NBA so far. Any number of minimum contract stiffs could fill the bill of being the backup center, so I'm not too concerned about who they sign for that spot. But what about that other potential signing? Who should they take there?

The depth chart would look something like this if that trade took place:

PG - Conley, Lowry
SG - Mayo, Crittenton, Buckner
SF - Gay, Walker
PF - Randolph, Warrick, Arthur
C - Gasol, Haddadi, Token Stiff

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm comfortable that our PG spot is fine, given that Conley, Lowry, Mayo and Critt all have played that position in their recent careers. I'd love to use that last spot to shore up the SG/SF positions though. This is especially true if 'Toine comes in less than 100% motivated this season. But who could we sign for a low level contract (a given with this regime) that could actually contribute if called upon? I know of a guy that's sitting out there in free agency, just waiting for his phone to ring. A player who is already familiar with the nuances of Memphis.

You know him, you love him, so let's welcome him back to the Bluff City..........Mister Bonzi Wells!


Before you start sputtering about his past with the Grizzlies, hear me out. His play on the court was rarely ever an issue -- his conflicts with the head coach (Mike Fratello) were a problem. No more Czar = no more problem. He was a fan favorite and Heisley absolutely loved the guy while he was here. He can play both swingman positions and is a veteran who can contribute, and could even start if called upon. People want a guy who won't back down, plays with heart and wants to win every single night? Here's your guy. Am I worried about having Bonzi, Zach and 'Toine in the same locker room with all these young, impressionable players? I'm scared to death of it. But if we're going to bring Z-Bo in, then why not go all out and find another guy who is long on talent and has a questionable head? Especially if that guy might bring a few more fans back to the FedEx Forum who think of him fondly.

The contract that he signed with Houston two years ago was for 2 years and $4.5 million. Anyone else think that kind of deal would fit in with the fiscally responsible Three Year Plan? Yeah, me too. Let's be honest - Zach Randolph isn't going to bring in more fans than having Adriana Lima in the stands would have. But bringing back Bonzi might -- especially if it rekindles memories of postseasons trips in the minds of fans who are looking for something to believe in.


Bring. Back. Bonzi.

Math: When 1+1 Does Not Equal 2

Robert Ruark's famous Old Man once said: "One boy is all boy, two boys is half a boy and three boys is no boy at all." In the same vein, football has adopted the saying that "two quarterbacks equals no quarterback". In a way, they both say the same thing, which is that sometimes, there is indeed such a thing as too much of a good thing.

As of right now, the Grizzlies depth chart for the players in contention for the much-maligned Three Year Plan looks a little something like this:

PG: Mike Conley/Kyle Lowry
SG: O.J. Mayo/Javaris Crittenton
SF: Rudy Gay
PF: Hakim Warrick/Darrell Arthur
C: Darko Milicic/Marc Gasol

The other players on the team are as follows:

Marko Jaric (PG/SG/SF?), Antoine Walker (SF/PF), Greg Buckner (SG/SF?)

Notice something about those young guys at four of the five positions above? That's right -- there are two of them fighting for the same minutes at the same position. At this point, we suspect that we know who the eventual winners will be, but in reality we don't actually know yet. That doubt in our minds is even more present in their's, because each of them truly believes that they deserve the lion's share of minutes. Well, except maybe for Darko. I don't know what he believes -- mostly because I'm too petrified of him to study him at length. Do you blame me?

Danica McKellar, who actually authored a math book.

There are 48 available minutes at each of those 5 positions and at some point in this season, a player is going to step up and show that he is worthy of 28-35 of them, rather than 13-20. But until that happens, it is anyone's game and that is when issues can arise.

Many people lambasted Chris Wallace for not moving one of the young guards (typically either Kyle Lowry or Javaris Crittenton) during the draft or in the offseason to this point, feeling that there were too many good young players with not enough places to play in the backcourt. I agree about the core idea (too much/not enough), but not about their solution. In this regard, I think that these players have to prove which of them is better and thusly deserve to stay and play in Memphis. In particular, the quartet of Conley, Lowry, Mayo and Critt have proven absolutely nothing to anyone at this point and all should be striving to show what they are capable of. When that happens, then a move can be made based on good evaluations and information. That might be after two months, at the trade deadline or possibly even next offseason. But once it becomes apparent that Player A is a keeper and Player Q is expendable, a move must be made before chemistry is upset and that player's value takes a hit.

With all of that said, I have had some interesting conversations lately about who the perceived "odd man out" is. Fans around the league seem to believe that it is Javaris Crittenton, as his name has popped up in numerous trade rumors. In my unqualified, unmedicated opinion, it would appear that Kyle Lowry is the far more likely choice based on a number of reasons.

First, he was the last draft choice of the old regime led by Jerry West, while the other three guards have been brought in by Chris Wallace. That alone has to count for something, as has been noted by my co-blogger Zack on numerous occasions.

Next, while he is full of grit, determination and tenacity, the perception is that his upside is much more limited than the other three players fighting for minutes in the backcourt. As we all know, perception all too often becomes reality when dealing with unmeasurable qualities like potential. The notion than Conley will become better than Lowry, even if he isn't yet there in many people's minds, will be an important factor in this decision.

Finally, he is a PG and a PG only. Whereas Mayo and Critt (both in the 6'4"-6'5" range) are reputed to be capable of playing either guard spot, meaning that a three guard rotation of Conley/Mayo/Critt is capable of splitting the 96 minutes at PG & SG without there being a dropoff. As anyone who saw the Grizzlies put Conley and Lowry on the floor at the same time last year could tell you, it might have given the team an extra quality ballhandler on the floor, but the lost size was a big issue. That, above all else, proved that 1+1 did not equal a 2 guard on the floor.

Hopefully, all of these things will work themselves out and the Grizzlies will find themselves with quality players at all 5 positions by the end of the season, putting them in a position to draft based solely upon "Best Player Available", rather than worrying about need. Because that's how you truly get better thru the draft -- which appears to be the best way that Grizzlies will have to rise up through the ranks once again and return to the postseason.

Pacifiying the Fan Base

Out of nowhere Friday, the Memphis Grizzlies signed the most dynamic player on the free agent market to a 5 year/$58 million offer sheet that was immediately matched by his hometown Atlanta Hawks. Josh Smith was the prototype for the power forward position in the offense that Iavaroni wants to run.

The funny thing is that I don't think I read a single account by a Grizzlies fan that actually thought that Atlanta would not match that offer sheet because it was reasonable. So why would Chris Wallace and Michael Heisley even waste their time with the offer? Why wouldn't they do like Philly and trade some of their young talent to clear out cap space to make an offer to Smith that Atlanta would not match? IMO it is because Memphis finally has a GM that knows what he is doing.

The Memphis Grizzlies are on The Three Year Plan (3YP) for better or worse. The first year of this plan is going to be real painful. I am not sure most fans have a realistic concept of the type of frustration they will experience this season. As such, the pressure to "do something" will be hard and heavy once the 2009 NBA trade deadline approaches and the Grizzlies are in dead last in the Western Conference. So Wallace (and Heisley) need to buy time. And that is just what the Josh Smith offer sheet did for them.

Why waste their time with the offer to Josh Smith? Why not? Josh Smith would have been a great fit for the Grizzlies long term and his talent would have mitigated the lost draft position that they would have missed on with the better record. He actually would have allowed the Grizzlies to potentially complete their future starting lineup a year in advance and thus accelerating the 3YP into a two year plan.

Why not make moves to sign Josh Smith to an offer sheet that Atlanta would not match? Although I have previously advocated making an inflated offer to Josh Smith because I think his future production will justify the salary, the Grizzlies just could not do so with their current roster. If the Grizzlies pay Josh Smith based on what they project his production to be in the future, what do they do next summer when Rudy Gay comes up for an extension? The Josh Smith offer sheet establishes the Grizzlies as a market level contract giver. Giving Smith an inflated deal would have painted them in the corner of giving Gay a near maximum extension even if he just reproduced this past season's production. That is a bad precedent to set.

So in the end the Josh Smith saga was a one day break from the offseason hibernation that the organization is experiencing. It came out of nowhere but it does reveal the motivations behind the 3YP. The Grizzlies are on the lookout for an impact player at power forward. Also, there will likely be no rumors of what the Grizzlies plan on doing until it is essentially a done deal. Sucks for us bloggers and message board folks but is good business for the Grizzlies.

Beale Street BluePrint

One of the most interesting things about the NBA for me is how much of an effect a truly elite player can have on a franchise. The NBA is the only professional league in which almost the entire fortune of a franchise can be driven by one player. My belief in The Superstar Theory was initially established after reading the wonderful article on 82games.com by Dennis Gallagher. A similar three part study was done on NBADraft.net by Robert W. McChesney (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). Both authors come to similar conclusions. Without a superstar player (All NBA 1st or 2nd team), an NBA team has virtually no chance at winning a championship.

McChesney identifies who he thinks are the truly elite talents in today's NBA that the Grizzlies will have to contend with when the 3YP is complete: LeBron James, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire, Dwyane Wade, Deron Williams and Yao Ming. These are McChesney's Gold Medal superstars. I will add Greg Oden and Kevin Durant to that list. The big question for the Memphis Grizzlies is can Rudy Gay, O.J. Mayo or Mike Conley make it it to Gold Medal superstar status. If they can't then it is implorable that they acquire one of the above nine players by any means possible. This is why the Mayo trade was a must do. Although Mike Miller and Kevin Love are good players (Love should be better than Miller), Mayo has a chance to reach superstar status. No amount of good players is worth passing up on a gold medal superstar.

McChesney makes this statement:

The moral of the story could not be clearer: Smart GMs, and smart fans, have to always be thinking about how their team can get a hold of a gold medal superstar, or, if it is the best you can do, a couple of silver medal superstars. It is the single most important issue before an NBA GM. Once you have your superstar(s), then your job is to surround him with the pieces to win a title, but that is a day at the beach compared to trying to get a gold or silver medal superstar in the first place.

If this is the foundation of the 3YP, then I am with it. If this is the reason why they did not actively pursue a free agent this summer, I am with it. There is no other philosophy I believe in about NBA team building more than The Superstar Theory. It is the reason why I was so fired up to go get Carmelo Anthony (just missed McChesney's cut). You win in the NBA with elite talents. It is not just about winning an NBA title, you need on of these elite players to even contend for an NBA title. Now I am sure there are a couple of examples that defy the rule but for the most part it has held true for the entirety of NBA history. As McChesney puts it:

On 40 of these 52 teams, the best player was one of the 21 gold medal superstars, the elite of the elite of the elite. In basketball, more than any other team sport, getting a player for the ages is essential for championships. Mere all-stars, even several of them, ain’t gonna get the job done. And 8 of the 11 champions that did not have a gold medal superstar leading it, had at least two players from this list on the team, in their primes, at least one of whom was silver-medal. (The exceptions? Rick Barry’s 75 Warriors, Elvin Hayes’s 78 Bullets, and Dennis Johnson’s 79 Sonics. These champions defeated teams in the finals that were similarly under armed; these were “down” years for the league. The late 70s was almost like a Bermuda Triangle for the NBA. Accordingly these are regarded as among the weaker champions in NBA history.)

It gets worse, or better, depending if your team has one of these guys. It is not just about winning titles; it is about getting within sniffing distance of winning titles. All but three of the losers in the NBA finals since 1956-57 have been led by one of these 80 superstars. (The exceptions? The 2000 Pacers, the 1978 Sonics and the 1971 Bullets.) So dig this: only 3 of the 104 teams that have played in the NBA finals were not led by a player on this list. Teams led by bronze medal superstars account for only 9 of these 104 teams, so even having one of them is hardly a winning ticket.

And over one-half of these runner-up teams in the NBA over the past 52 years have been led by gold medal superstars. That means 21 players have led 68 of the 104 teams that have played in the NBA finals since 1956-57. Considering how short Bill Walton’s effective career was, that really means 20 guys.

To put it in even more stark terms: the 28 finalist losers that were led by gold medal superstars lost to champions led by gold medal superstars 22 times. As a general rule, gold trumps silver and silver trumps bronze and nobody else is even allowed to play.

This is it in a nutshell. When teams are holding on to Shane Battiers, Mike Millers and Tayshaun Princes instead of going all in for one of the elite players, you know the GM does not know what he is doing. In fact, I will go a step father and state that the team building does not truly begin until you have at least a silver medal superstar in the fold. So when Heisley says:

If I get a superstar player, you know I said 3-5 years, hell I might be able to get there in 2 years. I might be willing to do what I said I wouldn't do and get an older player so everything changes depending on what the opportunity is.

I hope he is down with The Superstar Theory and not just blowing smoke. If you are a Grizz fan reading this then you already are aware of my skepticism of the 3 year plan. However, I have to ackowledge that there wasn't a single free agent available this offseason that qualifies as even a bronze medal superstar except for Gilbert Arenas and coming off an injury he got $100+ million. In 2009, there is only one potential Gold Medal Superstar that might even be available and that is Andrew Bynum and my guess is that the Lakers will MAX him out or match a maximum offer if they even allow it to get that far.

So as a Grizzlies fan, our hope lies in Chris Wallace acquiring a gold or silver medal superstar in trade or having on of our own develop into one. Anything else is just wheel spinning in the NBA.

Not Spending Might Cost Grizz in the Future

The 2008 NBA offseason has hit a quiet period for the Memphis Grizzlies. Now don't think GM Chris Wallace is resting on his draft night coup of getting O. J. Mayo and Darrell Arthur in Beale Street Blue. Apparently the Grizzlies are in talks with the Orlando Magic about sending backup point guard Javaris Crittenton to Disney World for J. J. Redick or Keith Bogans plus a 2009 1st round pick. However, this is the vacation period for NBA GMs, so do not expect any deals real soon. I won't speak on the merits of this deal at this time but I think Wallace needs to do something significant this offseason.

Why this season? I know there is a three year plan in place but being frugal this season could cost Wallace and the Grizzlies in the future. My reasoning is that without a major talent upgrade, especially in the frontcourt, the Grizzlies are going to be a non-competitive team for the third year in a row. This would mean that for the entirety of Rudy Gay's career, the Grizzlies will have been one of the three worst teams in the NBA each season. So next offseason in 2009 when it is time to start negotiating a contract extension, I think Rudy might be a little hesitant to commit long term to the Grizzlies organization. That is unless the Grizzlies want to offer him an inflated extension relative to his current value. I know most reading this are aware of the current NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and that even if the Grizzlies and Gay are not able to agree on an extension in 2009, the Grizzlies will hold the right of first refusal in 2010 and will be able to match any offer Gay gets as a restricted free agent. So what is the problem?

The problem is that 2010 is going to be a major offseason for free agency. There will be a lot of major market teams with lots of capspace in 2010 loading up for LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh. In fact a lot of GMs are getting some career longevity by clearing up caproom for 2010. By this time, if the plan is going right, Rudy Gay should have established himself as a reasonable alternative for an NBA GM when LeBron James decides not to sign with their team. This means that a NBA GM looking to save face for his 2010 plan might be willing to through a maximum contract offer at Rudy Gay. No problem right? The Grizzlies can match that and retain Rudy.

Well, the other inherent problem with Rudy Gay becoming a restricted free agent is that he gets a chance to see the other side. Despite what his other NBA friends tell him, all Rudy knows about the NBA is from the perspective as a Memphis Grizzlies player. Time for some reality: The Grizzlies are not the model NBA franchise. The last thing the Grizzlies want is to let Rudy Gay (and his agent), to get a taste of the possibilities of playing in New York or Chicago especially if we are coming off of four straight lottery appearances in 2010. Restricted free agency is one thing but do you think Heisley wants to invest a MAX contract into another player that voices a reluctance to want to be a Grizzlies player? Unlike other places, there will be no media backlash if Rudy and his agent demand that the Grizzlies work out a sign and trade or not match his offer sheet. It would be reasonable and expected by the national media.

This is the problem with going with a plan that has being a bad team as the focus. The Grizzlies risk alienating the very young players they plan to build around. I imagine that it has to be and will be very frustrating to be a part of so much losing. For the fans and the Grizzlies to expect this not to take a toll on their young players is unreasonable. Not only will it weigh on them but it enhances the perception that the Grizzlies are the Mid South Clippers. If the Grizzlies are serious about this three year plan, they need to put a more solid foundation down at the beginning or anything they build in the future will be unsteady.

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.

Bad News from the Head Bear

I'll start this off by apologizing. I am about to rain on your parade. As someone who really, really loved the acquisition of O. J. Mayo. I was really on cloud 9 after the details of that trade were leaked by The Memphis Flyers Chris Herrington. I thought the shackles were finally off of GM Chris Wallace and the Grizzlies were going to become an aggressive team builder. Unfortunately, just when you think things are about to make a turn for the better with the Grizzlies, Michael Heisley shows up and reminds you that any hope for success under his ownership is and will always be an exercise in futility.

What I am referring to is his debut of The Three Year Plan (TYP). Being caught up in the euphoria of Mayo-to-Memphis, I almost was fooled. I mean, in theory, it sounds real freaking good.

"We're committed to putting a contending team on the floor," Heisley said, "and the target is three years. I'm looking for -- three years from today Memphis to have a team than contends and then turning that team into a team that competes for championships."

Sounds good on the surface doesn't it? However, when you look at the statement, it makes absolutely no sense. In three years Heisley wants a team that contends and then turn that team into a team that competes for championships. Uh...say what? So in three years, what exactly will the Grizzlies be Mr. Heisley?

I think most fans that have bought into this "plan", have done so on the notion that in three years the Grizzlies will be where New Orleans and Utah are today. Heisley even brings up the Hornets when speaking about his plan:

I'm thinking if we get guys like New Orleans' (Chris) Paul and (David) West; if we get our two guys then I could basically go out there and hire free agents to move forward toward winning a championship.

So aren't Rudy Gay, Michael Conley and O. J. Mayo supposed to be our Chris Paul and David West? I guess not because we are not even considering making a move to hire any free agents this year. Now I am not saying it is a must to spend our cap room this summer but I think a team with a plan would at least be looking...that is unless year one of the plan involved saving money and having anothe sub 30 win season.

Hopefully, for Grizz fans sake, Heisley is just trying to recoup some cash before he sells the team. Between the lower payroll, cash via trades, and cash from the teams paying the luxury tax this season I suppose the Grizzlies have been profitable or at least break even for the first time in Memphis and this year will likely lead to an eight figure profit. Maybe at this point Heisley will finally be able to find a buyer with the cash to purchase and the sense to understand that Memphis can be a profitable market if the fans are given a worthwile product to follow.

Chico's Bail Bonds anyone?