[travesy3]

Quote

Allen Iverson's tenure with the Grizzlies is now over. Iverson signed with a one-year contract with Memphis that paid him just over $3 million, but he will receive only a small fraction of that amount.

“The Grizzlies and Allen Iverson have come to a mutual agreement that because of personal matters that forced him to leave the team on November 7, Allen will step away from the game at this time, allowing him to focus on those matters," said general manager Chris Wallace in a statement.

“As a result, we will be ending our contractual agreement with Allen, which will allow both parties to move forward. We wish Allen the best.”

Iverson averaged 12.3 points per game in his three appearances with the Grizzlies.

Got it off RealGM, also saw it on ESPN. How long before he signs with another team? 1 or 2 weeks? A month?

[Sublime]

Best news I've heard concerning the Grizzlies in a while. John Wall to the rescue.

[CobbFC09]

I would hate to see his career end like his. Hopefully a team will pick him up but the chances look slim since money is tight right now in the NBA.

[travesy3]

It is sad this guy isn't willing to take a back seat. If only he could understand how effective he could be off the bench. He would be better if he was playing with all the crappier players, a team like Phoenix would be amazing with AI on the bench.

[Sublime]

Iverson is too selfish to be on the bench. I tried defending this guy but when you start complaining about playing time your first game back from injury, you're just a lost cause. He's a chemistry killer and an ego maniac. I just feel sorry for those people who bought his jersey and it was only worth something for a few weeks.

[Real Deal]

Can't disagree more, Adrian. You can't bring Iverson off the bench, and I'm not sure what chemistry he has ever killed. Detroit didn't have any to kill, and Memphis is a bad team with or without Iverson. They would've ended up with a top three bottom record anyways, if they had decided to bring Iverson off the bench all year (and if he accepted that).

If the bench played very well defensively, it would be an excellent move...but they don't. Iverson needs defensive-minded teammates around him, and even then, Memphis has trouble scoring in the starting five. If it's not Mayo having a bad night, it's Gay, or Randolph, or someone...just hard to find them all showing up all in the same game.

With Iverson gone, all the pressure shifts back to Mayo as the leader, despite Gay being the older player. Memphis and OJ both know he's the franchise, and having someone like Iverson in the five takes the load off, gives him open shots, and makes life easier until his game is polished enough to take the Grizz to the next level. That's what rooks and sophomores need. I can't say that Rudy Gay helps him with that, and there's nobody else on the roster you can say that about.

I think it was a big mistake signing him if you were bringing him off the bench in the first place, and I even think it's a big mistake letting him go. After seeing what Iverson can do against the Lakers every year, it's hard for me to say he's worthless in the league. The right coach will fix any problems that arise with his leadership, and as long as he's in the five, there shouldn't be any whatsoever.

[kingfish]

He was signed only to sell tickets, probably just season ticket renewals. Same thing with trading for Zach, I have a feeling hes on the way out as well possibly.

[Sublime]

You mentioned the exact reason why this deal was dumb. The Grizzlies are no better with him.

Conley is in his third year, and it's about time we see if he really has the talent he displayed in OSU because if not we should look elsewhere for our point guard. I don't want Iverson taking away his minutes if we aren't going to win.

Rudy Gay spoke out about Iverson and his antics, so has Hollins, and so has the fan base. Micheal Hiesley is the only one who has supported this deal because he is the master mind behind it. Quite frankly, we're all tired of all the drama that isn't wanted in a young team in the first place.

I tried to defend this deal, but there's a point where you just stop. Iverson had to understand he was wanted as a sixth-man and if the management didn't address that than they have some fault to this as well considering Iverson's past issues with playing time.

I disagree that Iverson takes the load from Mayo and gives him open shots. Iverson may have decent assist numbers but he completely disrupts the ball movement.

Not to mention Iverson's defense is absolutely horrendous. Conley at least stays with his man and makes an effort. Iverson just goes for risky steals and passes in the lane.

[Sublime]

kingfish, on 16 November 2009 - 06:15 PM, said:

He was signed only to sell tickets, probably just season ticket renewals. Same thing with trading for Zach, I have a feeling hes on the way out as well possibly.

Zach has no reason to leave. He has been making a much better effort on both sides of the ball (his defense is nothing special, but still). He works hard in the glass and I haven't heard about any problems with his attitude or with any teammates having problems with him.

[Real Deal]

Poohdini, on 16 November 2009 - 06:17 PM, said:

You mentioned the exact reason why this deal was dumb. The Grizzlies are no better with him.

...with him off the bench.

I think you guys can win games with him in the five, Conley off the bench. I think Conley is in the same situation as most borderline starting point guards, where he'll be much better as a sixth man in a second unit.

But that's just how I feel about the entire situation. Iverson doesn't have to be your franchise point, but if you wanted to win games and have a shot at the playoffs (long reach), then he'd be the one to start.

[Sublime]

Real Deal, on 16 November 2009 - 06:36 PM, said:

...with him off the bench.

I think you guys can win games with him in the five, Conley off the bench. I think Conley is in the same situation as most borderline starting point guards, where he'll be much better as a sixth man in a second unit.

But that's just how I feel about the entire situation. Iverson doesn't have to be your franchise point, but if you wanted to win games and have a shot at the playoffs (long reach), then he'd be the one to start.

Ivaroni tried Conley as a sixth man and he was very mediocre.

I was fooled in the beginning of the season. I actually thought we had a chance to make the playoffs, but if you look at the rest of the West, do you really think we're better than Portland, Denver, OKC, Utah, Phoenix, Lakers, Mavs, Rockets, or even the Kings right now?

I'd rather just continue to build around the draft (maybe FA this summer) instead of fighting to win 35 games and not make the playoffs.

[Real Deal]

I think the bigger picture is the attendance. What are the numbers, anyways?

I'd be more concerned about Memphis keeping their team than anything else. Memphis and Sacramento have been the two cities one would be curious about in regards to losing their franchises, and even getting Durant didn't help the Seattle Supersonics.

[Erick Blasco]

You can't have so many high volume players on a roster though. Nobody does anything without the ball and the game degrades to my shot, your shot. If Randolph doesn't get enough touches, he'll start shooting whenever he does get the ball. Ditto for everyone else. You can't score that way. Having him in the starting lineup would be a disaster. You need players who can be fine as fourth or fifth options. In the starting lineup, you think Iverson is passing the ball and being a second option? He never has, and since in his estimation he's God, why would he?

No winning team will take him on because they know he's a loser player. No losing team needs the headache (except maybe New Jersey).

Aside from a fluke season with teammates who mutilated themselves for him, and during one of the worst stretches in a conference's history in any sport, Iverson has been on disappointing teams his entire career, bringing a Pistons franchise down with him, leaving the Sixers in shambles while watching them accomplish modest success without him, leaving the Nuggets in shambles while watching Denver achieve the most success they've had in forever without him, accomplishing worse playoff successes for teams than the players he replaced or replaced him (Miller, Billups).

Iverson has a fluke MVP, some empty points, a crossover, and a giant ego. Let him be crowned king of the Hall of Disappointments. So many players have accomplished so much more with so much less.

[Real Deal]

What have the Sixers done without Iverson? They are on the ropes again. Before Iverson, Philly hadn't had a 50-game season since 1989 or 1990. After him? They haven't won over 41 games.

What Denver team mutilated themselves for Iverson? I hope you're not talking about the 2008 Nuggets.

Melo: 25.7 PPG on 49.2% FG
Martin: 12.4 PPG on 53.8% FG
Smith: 12.3 PPG on 46.1% FG
Kleiza: 11.1 PPG on 47.2% FG
Camby: 9.1 PPG on 45% FG
Carter: 7.8 PPG on 45.8% FG
Najera: 5.9 PPG on 47.3% FG

Nene played 16 games.

Chris Andersen played zero.

Iverson led that team in points, steals, assists, lack of personal fouls (over 15 min of play), minutes played, free throw attempts, free throw percentage (more than 25 games played), played and started all 82 games, and won 50 games that year for Denver.

The team shot very well with him. Didn't look like his selfishness led to poor shot distribution, and Melo still put up his numbers.

Iverson's statline?

26.4 PPG on 45.8% FG, 34.5% 3PT, 80.9% FT, 3.0 RPG, 7.1 APG, 2.0 SPG, 3.0 TO, 41.8 MPG

Denver was ranked 10th defensively with Iverson on the roster, and ranked 8th last season without him.

The team shot 47% from the floor last season, and shot 47% the season before (with Iverson). They allowed 44% shooting last year, 45.7% shooting the year before, not much of a difference when you factor out Camby's overrated defense, the team not having Birdman, and not having Jones or Afflalo playing defense.

If the Nuggets had Nene, Birdman, and had met anyone other than the Lakers in the first round, they would've reached the conference finals.

[Ya Dig!]

Quote

leaving the Sixers in shambles while watching them accomplish modest success without him,

That statement is a contradiction in it self IMO. The Sixers never did well in building a complete team and they were not going to do well with or without him.

As for the Pistons they were on a downfall as morale was getting tumultuous and thus Rasheed leaving. The Nuggets on the other hand made a bad decision trading Miller for Iverson as the team seemed to be gelling really well before that deal went down and JR Smith was just starting to flourish in the offense. Denver's problem was not Miller but it was really Marcus Camby.

Each team he has gone too always tells him to not try and fit in but to just do the "Allen Iverson" thing and when he does that they use him as a scapegoat for bad team personnel decision making

[Erick Blasco]

Real Deal, on 17 November 2009 - 04:37 AM, said:

What have the Sixers done without Iverson? They are on the ropes again. Before Iverson, Philly hadn't had a 50-game season since 1989 or 1990. After him? They haven't won over 41 games.

What Denver team mutilated themselves for Iverson? I hope you're not talking about the 2008 Nuggets.

Melo: 25.7 PPG on 49.2% FG
Martin: 12.4 PPG on 53.8% FG
Smith: 12.3 PPG on 46.1% FG
Kleiza: 11.1 PPG on 47.2% FG
Camby: 9.1 PPG on 45% FG
Carter: 7.8 PPG on 45.8% FG
Najera: 5.9 PPG on 47.3% FG

Nene played 16 games.

Chris Andersen played zero.

Iverson led that team in points, steals, assists, lack of personal fouls (over 15 min of play), minutes played, free throw attempts, free throw percentage (more than 25 games played), played and started all 82 games, and won 50 games that year for Denver.

The team shot very well with him. Didn't look like his selfishness led to poor shot distribution, and Melo still put up his numbers.

Iverson's statline?

26.4 PPG on 45.8% FG, 34.5% 3PT, 80.9% FT, 3.0 RPG, 7.1 APG, 2.0 SPG, 3.0 TO, 41.8 MPG

Denver was ranked 10th defensively with Iverson on the roster, and ranked 8th last season without him.

The team shot 47% from the floor last season, and shot 47% the season before (with Iverson). They allowed 44% shooting last year, 45.7% shooting the year before, not much of a difference when you factor out Camby's overrated defense, the team not having Birdman, and not having Jones or Afflalo playing defense.

If the Nuggets had Nene, Birdman, and had met anyone other than the Lakers in the first round, they would've reached the conference finals.

They also went three of the final four seasons with him winning less than 41 games, with the only time they went over was in 2004-05 when they won 43. He won 50 games with Philly one time. Let's not make it seem like he made them a consistent winning ball club. They went from a 35-win team in his last half season to a 40-win team and a 41-win team with Miller.

I'm not talking about the Nuggets, I'm talking about the 00-01 team of players who killed themselves alongside Iverson. Of course the team wasn't going to do the same the next season and they lost in the first round.

Nobody cares about the offense from that Nuggets team, even though only J.R. Smith and Linas Kleiza shot well against the Lakers. Anyone who scouted that team knew their defense was made of glass and any team with patience would pick them apart. Lo and behold, the Lakers massacred them. Take him out, put in Billups, all of a sudden the team is more committed to playing defense. All of a sudden the ball moves more and things happen without the ball. The offense becomes multi-dimensional and Denver takes off.

Last year's Nuggets team could defend, as opposed to playing at such a fast pace that opponents get seduced into taking and missing long jump shots. When Denver needed stops, they got them.

Birdman plays the exact same defense Camby does, and Nene's a lazy defender. But all the players who were already in Denver played better defense with Billups than with Iverson.

Denver wasn't going to beat any team that postseason except maybe Houston. Utah's offense would shred them, San Antonio would wear them down, Chris Paul would go bananas, Dallas could score on them and defend them. That Denver team was a sweep waiting to happen. Nobody believed their defensive numbers were accurate indicators of their defense. Nobody.

[Erick Blasco]

Ya Dig!, on 17 November 2009 - 08:38 AM, said:

That statement is a contradiction in it self IMO. The Sixers never did well in building a complete team and they were not going to do well with or without him.

As for the Pistons they were on a downfall as morale was getting tumultuous and thus Rasheed leaving. The Nuggets on the other hand made a bad decision trading Miller for Iverson as the team seemed to be gelling really well before that deal went down and JR Smith was just starting to flourish in the offense. Denver's problem was not Miller but it was really Marcus Camby.

Each team he has gone too always tells him to not try and fit in but to just do the "Allen Iverson" thing and when he does that they use him as a scapegoat for bad team personnel decision making

How can you build a complete team with a player who plays the wrong way? The only way to make a team with Iverson work is to surround him with defensive specialists and hope he scores enough. It's how the Rockets won 22 games a few seasons ago, but that didn't work either, and will only work in a short-term circumstance.

Of course morale would go down with a team of professionals dedicated to playing the right way taking on a player who only can play with the ball in his hands. Denver did have a lot of problems aside from Iverson. Carmelo was lazy, J.R. Smith hadn't seen the light, Camby was a fraud and nothing Iverson did changed that. Iverson didn't make the team better and his intrinsic qualities make teams worse.

The Pistons tried to incorporate him into their offense. They didn't want Iverson to do his thing, at least not as a starter. But there's only so many times you're going to curl hard off a screen without getting the ball. I can't compare Detroit's situation this year to last year because it's a completely different Pistons team, but there's no question Iverson contributed to the team's disarray, especially by refusing to come off the bench when it was proven that he wasn't cutting it in the starting lineup and Hamilton was tearing it up off the bench, and when Iverson sat out the rest of the year.

He also gave up on the team with the lame-[expletive] back excuse. He didn't want to succumb to the thought that he's not as good as his ego. Carmelo said the entire team quit against the Lakers in 2008. That's an example of a player quitting three seasons in a row. No wonder his teams underachieve, he's a quitter and a loser.

[Real Deal]

Gotta disagree, bro. I think that's one thing I'll never get. You are really, really heavy on a team's defense. I agree that a team can't win a championship without it, but there are many teams in the past that get to the conference finals with bad defense, namely the Suns and Kings.

And that Sixers team finished poorly with Iverson once they rid the team of Larry Brown. You didn't mention the fact that Iverson played a half a season in 2003-04, either, and was injured most of that time he actually was on the floor.

Once they brought in Webber, though, that changed it all. He was inconsistent on offense and played absolutely no defense. And C-Webb lasted two seasons with Iverson and the Sixers, and AI finished with four coaches in three years after Brown.

You can put the blame on Iverson all you want for those losses, but it was the multiple coaching chances, and the surrounding players, that turned the Sixers into a mediocre team with no fans. If Andre Miller added just one or two wins...that doesn't tell me much at all. Let's see him take Mutombo and Tyrone Hill to the NBA Finals before I start talking about his ability to run and lead a team anywhere outside of the 41 wins he and Iggy were capable of achieving.

[ChosenOne]

Well at least they did this early in the year.