Most Lopsided Trades in NBA history
I'm not a big fan of the Bleacher Report's style. Too much clicking to do, having to get through various slideshows.
Originally Posted by IowaSacKing93
They seem to be getting big though, as Inside the MLB referenced them, and I think Inside The NBA does that too.
I think the Dr. J one was the worst.
For the Robert Parish and the 4th overall pick for the 1st pick (Joe Barry Carrol) and 13th pick (Rickey Brown), I don't think it's too bad. First of all, there's probably a reason why Golden State traded Robert Parish in the first place. Maybe they thought he was going to leave anyways.
Maybe their payroll was too high.
Maybe Parish was just unhappy and it was affecting everyone. I don't know.
Also, Joe Barry Carrol was at least a decent player. It's not like he was Michael Beasley. You dont know how draft picks were going to go, and he turned out decent. He was just hurt, and he left to go play in Italy after 4 years, for one year.
I also don't consider the Nowitzki for Tractor Traylor much of a "trade". They had already agreed to swap picks before the draft. Dallas could have had Nowitzki with the 6th pick instead of the 9th pick if they really wanted to, but it was a prearranged draft swap.
Pippen was a player who went to Central Arkansas, not exactly a hotbed of talent. He also had a growth spurt in college. He was obscure.
With the Pau trade, Memphis wanted to rebuild. They had a high payroll for a team that couldn't win a playoffs series. Yes, it's a little weird that they spent the same money on Zach Randolph 1.5 years later, but that trade is no different than Baron Davis for Speedy Claxton and Dale Davis, by the Hornets. Or Chauncey Billups for Allen Iverson (salary dump). When you rebuild, you have to get rid of some high salary and build around the draft for a few years. Once you think you have enough pieces to build around, then you make a splash in FA, which Memphis did with Randolph.
They could have tried it Boston's way, in which Boston kept Pierce the entire time. But that's risky too. There were so many rumors of Pierce being traded in 2005 and 2006 and 2007.
Marc is a better center than Pau now, and his youth is helpful for Memphis currently.
With the Bill Russell trade, it appears the St. Louis Hawks wanted a veteran in Ed Macauley. He still had one year as an All-Star for the Hawks.
Sometimes you get burned by these things after the fact. Here's a case where a team traded for a veteran, accidentally gave up a HOFer. Other times, teams hold onto their veteran too long, instead of trying for someone younger.
With the Kobe Bryant trade, I don't consider that a "trade". Bryant's agent said he wasn't going to play for the Hornets. Remember at that time, draft picks could hold out and not play. The Hornets were forced to trade Bryant because of that, they didn't want to wait around forever for a contract dispute.
It's no different from Steve Francis refusing to play for Memphis, or Keith Van Horn for Philly. Amare Stoudemire refused to work out for the Warriors, which is why they didn't draft him.
Thomas Robinson didn't work out for the Kings, although I think that could be because the Kings had already done their homework and didn't need to work him out. IMO, workouts are best for bubble players who you need to see one more time. I don't know how much you can gain from a player shooting in an empty gym. Sometimes it helps, but sometimes you need context of how they fit in to a 5 on 5 situation. But maybe with Robinson, he really didn't want to be with the Kings. Whatever, I think he's fine now.
So to me, the Dr. J one was bad, because they had him, knew how good he was, and only sold him because of the team's financial trouble. They didn't get a draft pick back, which could be hit-or-miss. They weren't doing it for a philosophy reason, as in "we've had a team that's stagnant and we need to shake things up and try to go younger". Most of the other trades at least had a reason why they happened.
So IowaSacKing93, your thoughts? On either the article or my post.
Amazes me when these franchises avoid a player because they "wont play for them". I know the guaranteed rookie contracts have changed since the early and mid 90's, but you've got these guys essentially on four/five year deals now. They can't not play for you and in due time, they'll probably grow to be comfortable with the franchise, say like a Webber who didn't want to play in Sac.
I mean - unless the alternative was just as good, tell em to suck it up.
Originally Posted by Eze
I do think it helps a lot that rookie contracts are on a set scale though.
Otherwise, some teams just don't want the distraction of a holdout, although it seems like that ends up hurting franchises most of the time. They end up passing on the better player.
I can't recall many bad players who refused workouts or refused to play.
Even Van Horn, who didn't want to play for Philly, I think the 76ers were worse off when they drafted Van Horn and traded him for Lucious Harris and Michael Cage.
The Grizzlies would have been better off with Steve Francis than these guys:
Michael Dickerson, Othella Harrington, Brent Price, Antoine Carr, second round pick (2002 #45-Matt Barnes), 2003 first round pick (#13-Marcus Banks)
If I remember, I think Jerry Reynolds said that the Kings intended to draft Kobe even though he informed the Kings he wouldn't play for them.
I'm happy with Stojakovic, but Richmond at SG and Bryant at SF would have been interesting. Maybe not his rookie year, but afterward.
Originally Posted by Eze
Yep the Kings were high on all the HS kids coming out. They targetted KG, Tracy McGrady, and Kobe. They would of taken any of them regardless of them not wanting to come.
Originally Posted by Eze
Originally Posted by bloatedmaniac