The Grizzlies can go three different ways with the #5 pick — combine it with other assets in a bid to move up for Michael Beasley, stay put and select a player to keep at #5, or deal down or out of the lottery completely.

Based on the panorama of rumors out there as well as my own contacts with team personnel, it seems clear that all three options are quite possible. Let’s take a closer look at each option, starting with moving up.

Initially, it seemed like the Heat trading the rights to Beasley would be contingent on getting back O.J. Mayo. With Mayo unlikely to slip to the Grizzlies at 5, I thought the path to Beasley would require a relatively complicated three-team deal with the Heat and the Timberwolves, with the Wolves taking Mayo at #3 for the Grizzlies and the Grizzlies drafting for the Wolves at #5 while sending secondary assets to (or taking contracts from) both teams.

But, now, rumors are suggesting the Heat might be willing to deal Beasley without insisting on Mayo, which opens up the possibility of the Grizzlies dealing directly with the Heat.

If the Heat are making Beasley available, how much is too much to give up?

How much is too much to snare the Beast?

With the understanding that Rudy Gay is out of the conversation, it seems like all other Grizzlies assets are open to discussion here. Let’s divide the potential elements of this trade into four areas:

Primary Assets:
#5 pick
Mike Conley
Rights to Marc Gasol

Secondary Assets:
Mike Miller
Kyle Lowry
Hakim Warrick
#28 pick

Miami Dead-Weight Contracts:
Mark Blount (2 years for $15 million)
Marcus Banks (3 years for $13 million)

My initial take was that a reasonable deal for Beasley would consist of one element from each group. The rumor of Mike Miller and #5 for Mark Blount and #2 seemed reasonable. Or perhaps including two pieces from the middle group if Miami also added a secondary asset: Miller, Kyle Lowry and #5 for Blount, Daequan Cook, and #2 would fit the bill.

Where the situation gets tricky is when the Heat demand two primary assets, as is the case with the trade rumors Chad Ford threw out today: Conley and #5 for Cook and #2 or Miller, Conley and #5 for Udonis Haslem, Cook and #2.

The Grizzlies need to focus on two things right now from a team-building perspective: Assembling a core of young players capable of growing into a contender and planning to be able to afford to keep those players together.

Clearly Rudy Gay is part of that core. Currently, the team has three other assets that could join Gay there: Conley, the #5 pick, and possibly Gasol. But Beasley, by all accounts, is at a higher level. He has a chance to be a perennial 20-10 player in the league and the Grizzlies believe he’s a surefire all-star caliber player.

Pair Beasley and Gay and add in a core-caliber guard (in the form of either Conley or someone acquired at #5) and the Grizzlies could reasonably go into next season with their full core in place.

In this sense, if you’re sold on Beasley as an impact player, it’s worth offering anyone other than Gay and Conley to get him: If you put those three players together (or, even better, those four with Gasol), then you can deal with figuring out the right secondary players over the next couple of seasons.

Additionally, taking back dead-weight contracts from the Heat, while perhaps impacting the bottom-line in the short term or limiting what can be accomplished in free-agency, would have no effect on the second piece of the puzzle: Keeping that core together long-term. Both of the Heat’s bad contracts are relatively short-term deals that would come off the books before the Grizzlies would need to resign members of the core.

So, I’d be happy to deal almost anything for Beasley that didn’t include Gay or Conley. But, pairing Conley and the 5th pick, as Ford suggest today? That seems a little steep.

Is Conley too much to give up?

And, yet, I might do it anyway, if the deal left out all secondary team assets and didn’t force bad contracts on the Grizzlies, which would be the case with Conley/#5 for Cook/#2.

In that scenario, you would pair Gay and Beasley in a dynamic duo, you would be solid at center with Gasol and Darko Milicic, you would have decent young options at the point (Lowry and Javaris Crittenton), you would have some tradable secondary assets (Miller and Warrick), and you’d have cap space this summer and/or next to address other needs.

I worry about losing Conley’s upside at a crucial position (I think Conley’s going to be a Top 10 point guard, maybe even Top 5) and I’m very enamored about the possibilities of Conley and Kevin Love working off each other (more on that in the next post). But you have to take a shot at the stardom that Beasley could offer for both its on-court and off-court impact.

How much is too much for Beasley?

I’ve settled on what I’m calling the Four-Point Plan: Take the three groups of elements above and assign 2 points to each of the primary assets, 1 point to each of the secondary assets, and 1 point to each of the dead-weight contracts. Add up the point totals involved in any trade proposal. If it exceeds “4,” then I think that’s too much. (No subtractions for Heat secondary assets.)

For example:

Conley (2) and #5(2) for Cook and #2 would be a four-point trade: Acceptable.

#5 (2) and Miller (1) for #2 and Blount (1) would be a four-point trade: Acceptable.

Miller (1) and Lowry (1) for #2, Blount (1), and Banks (1) would be a four-point trade: Acceptable.

Conley (2), #5(2), and Miller (1) for #2, Haslem, and Cook would be a five-point trade: Too much.

ADDENDUM: On second thought, I don't think I would trade Conley and #5 for Beasley IF Mayo or Love were on the board. I would rather have Conley/Mayo or Conley/Love than Beasley. If those two players were to go #3 and #4, then, sure, I'd do the deal. I'm very torn about giving up this much. If this is the decision being made, then I don't envy Chris Wallace right now.

Submitted by Chris Herrington on Wed, 06/25/2008 - 3:29am.
Chris Herrington's blog | add new comment | email this blog