THe Vancouver Grizzlies....where did it all go wrong

Bruinaholic
01-15-2007, 02:53 AM
The team while in Vancouver had atrocious season after atrocious season...
They made some terrible picks(Big Country Reeves,Antonio Daniels) and some nice picks(Abdur Rahim,Bibby) but never had more then 23 wins in there 6 seasons in the Great North West.
I havent looked into there attendance figures but i cant imagine it even being respectable considering the teams lack of success and putting up the white flag and moving south after just 6 years.
The team for good measure also had fugly uniforms;)

What does everyone else here think of the mess that was known as the Vancouver Grizzlies and who in your opinion is the reason for this debacle?
Anybody who went to games and/or was a fan of this team im curious as too what you think and know about what went on in this organization.

Fish on The Sand
01-15-2007, 05:15 AM
The team while in Vancouver had atrocious season after atrocious season...
They made some terrible picks(Big Country Reeves,Antonio Daniels) and some nice picks(Abdur Rahim,Bibby) but never had more then 23 wins in there 6 seasons in the Great North West.
I havent looked into there attendance figures but i cant imagine it even being respectable considering the teams lack of success and putting up the white flag and moving south after just 6 years.
The team for good measure also had fugly uniforms;)

What does everyone else here think of the mess that was known as the Vancouver Grizzlies and who in your opinion is the reason for this debacle?
Anybody who went to games and/or was a fan of this team im curious as too what you think and know about what went on in this organization.

They were simply the worst coached, and worst managed team in sports history. Milbury could have ran the team better and he can't even run a team in his sport of expertise.

chaosrevolver
01-15-2007, 09:16 AM
Started from Steve Francis and went from there...............................

mr gib
01-15-2007, 11:34 AM
Started from Steve Francis and went from there...............................

wrong - stu jackson from the start - even cuban said mav's would have left dallas is he ran the team the way the nba wanted him to -

according to cuban on 1040 - the grizzlies had only two sales people in the office - mav's hired 40 -

serious restriction's on how much money they could spend on draft signing's and free agent's in the first 3 year's of operations -

heisley said toward the end only 8000 paid per game - can't verifly that tho - obviously the fan's figured out what was going on -

i e - laurie

TorontoSports
01-16-2007, 04:53 PM
I actually went to a grizzlies game in like their second season when they faced the Blazers. The place was pretty packed and I remember their Mascot rubbing his butt in some women's face lol.

There are a few things that handicapped the team from the get go like not being abled to pick first for a few years. They were just a very crappy team and the NBA shouldn't have granted Vancouver a franchise to the griffiths (I think that's his name) because they didn't have big pockets like say MLSE. In the end when he had to sell it, he couldn't find any local ownership and Heisley bought the team because it was cheaper than an expansion franchise and Memphis was offering more money.

I don't think the idea of expansion to Vancouver was a mistake, but just at the time it wasn't a good idea, but there are rumors that the new canucks ownership has talked to stern keeping in touch just in case something happens, and it makes sense because they now own the arena and with another tenant there is an extra 41 dates booked.

Canadian dollar was way down back then, but now it's solid.

19nazzy
01-16-2007, 06:43 PM
Started from Steve Francis and went from there...............................
I'd say Big Country.

Dr.Funk
01-16-2007, 07:19 PM
Started from Steve Francis and went from there...............................


It started long before the Steve Francis debacle, that just put it over the top.

TorontoSports
01-16-2007, 07:48 PM
It started long before the Steve Francis debacle, that just put it over the top.

Didn't Baron Davis and Elton Brand say they wouldn't mind playing in Vancouver? Stu Jackson just couldn't resist could he lol.

mr gib
01-16-2007, 09:46 PM
http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/grizzlies_willes.htm

TorontoSports
01-16-2007, 11:15 PM
http://www.hoopshype.com/articles/grizzlies_willes.htm

LOL... Stu I'm sure if you built a decent team it would have been a lot better. There are plenty of NBA markets that have attendance problems when the team isn't competing just look at Philadelphia or even my Blazers. I just remember that team being very horrible, I think Stu Jackson is just covering up for himself. I mean, judging from the attendance numbers in Memphis I guess you could say that isn't a basketball town either?

mr gib
01-16-2007, 11:51 PM
LOL... Stu I'm sure if you built a decent team it would have been a lot better. There are plenty of NBA markets that have attendance problems when the team isn't competing just look at Philadelphia or even my Blazers. I just remember that team being very horrible, I think Stu Jackson is just covering up for himself. I mean, judging from the attendance numbers in Memphis I guess you could say that isn't a basketball town either? -


when the rumours started floating that the team would be moved - laurie etc - everyone checked out - and you're right - year's of losing

BuppY
01-17-2007, 12:30 AM
Steve Francis is often blamed for Grizzlies leaving Vancouver but the mess was started before him, and he just added by refusing to paly for them and demanding a trade.

Hasbro
01-20-2007, 03:26 AM
It's because Vancouverites aren't real basketball fans, they're bandwagoners who don't know the game and didn't deserve a team.:sarcasm: Stupid Stern trying to expand into the ice belt!

chaosrevolver
01-20-2007, 11:24 AM
I honestly have never heard of Stu Jackson, im only 15 so

Biggsy
01-20-2007, 03:39 PM
Drafting big country was the downfall of the Grizz

chaosrevolver
01-20-2007, 04:50 PM
who's "Big Country"? Francis, Abdur-rahim? :dunno:

mr gib
01-20-2007, 04:56 PM
I honestly have never heard of Stu Jackson, im only 15 so


gimme a g
gimme an o
gimme another o
gimme a g
gimme an l
gimme an e

what's that spell?

The Nemesis
01-20-2007, 05:49 PM
The downfall of the Grizzlies was due to a number of things all coming together in one cataclysmic storm of suck.

1) Stu Jackson had the managerial foresight of an Enron employee. The man made terrible move after terrible move, and the occasional successful was never enough to counterbalance his mistakes.

2) Bryant Reeves was a terrible mistake of a draft pick. The man was never a gym rat from the beginning, and it was obvious that he was going to break down eventually. It also didn't help matters that Jackson gave him that insane contract which pretty much hamstrung the Grizzlies from ever assembling depth.

3) Steve Francis. The Grizz had a multitude of choices instead of Francis, and they chose to go with him even though he was a bit of a head case. While they did their best getting a decent return when dealing him to Houston, it all could've been avoided.

4) A front office staff that was at times apathetic, and at other times far too undermanned to make any real difference. People would've embraced this team, but it seems like the Grizzlies at time took it for granted that people would keep showing up.

5) The Griffiths/orca bay were a poor choice for ownership. They haven't even shown that they possessed any sort of drive with the Canucks, so letting them have a basketball team was bad. It felt like they looked at the opportunity more like a novelty than a serious commitement.

6) Fans became jaded in the end. We all knew the team was moving. Laurie and Heisley were no different, it's just that Laurie was stupid enough to slip up and let his plans out ahead of time. People argue that there were low attendence figures at the end and how that points to a bad basketball market, but there are two factors there:
-We weren't stupid. Why show up and support a team that basically was living on borrowed time?
-The team hasn't done markedly better in Memphis, let alone several other markets with low turnouts. People just wanted to pull the plug on Vancouver faster than they're willing to in other markets.

mr gib
01-20-2007, 06:34 PM
The downfall of the Grizzlies was due to a number of things all coming together in one cataclysmic storm of suck.

1) Stu Jackson had the managerial foresight of an Enron employee. The man made terrible move after terrible move, and the occasional successful was never enough to counterbalance his mistakes.

2) Bryant Reeves was a terrible mistake of a draft pick. The man was never a gym rat from the beginning, and it was obvious that he was going to break down eventually. It also didn't help matters that Jackson gave him that insane contract which pretty much hamstrung the Grizzlies from ever assembling depth.

3) Steve Francis. The Grizz had a multitude of choices instead of Francis, and they chose to go with him even though he was a bit of a head case. While they did their best getting a decent return when dealing him to Houston, it all could've been avoided.

4) A front office staff that was at times apathetic, and at other times far too undermanned to make any real difference. People would've embraced this team, but it seems like the Grizzlies at time took it for granted that people would keep showing up.

5) The Griffiths/orca bay were a poor choice for ownership. They haven't even shown that they possessed any sort of drive with the Canucks, so letting them have a basketball team was bad. It felt like they looked at the opportunity more like a novelty than a serious commitement.

6) Fans became jaded in the end. We all knew the team was moving. Laurie and Heisley were no different, it's just that Laurie was stupid enough to slip up and let his plans out ahead of time. People argue that there were low attendence figures at the end and how that points to a bad basketball market, but there are two factors there:
-We weren't stupid. Why show up and support a team that basically was living on borrowed time?
-The team hasn't done markedly better in Memphis, let alone several other markets with low turnouts. People just wanted to pull the plug on Vancouver faster than they're willing to in other markets. -

well said

chaosrevolver
01-20-2007, 10:16 PM
gimme a g
gimme an o
gimme another o
gimme a g
gimme an l
gimme an e

what's that spell?I wasnt asking for where I can find him, I was just saying I had never heard of him cause ppl were saying that my opinion was not where the Grizzlies went wrong

The Nemesis
01-21-2007, 02:02 AM
I wasnt asking for where I can find him, I was just saying I had never heard of him cause ppl were saying that my opinion was not where the Grizzlies went wrong

Stu Jackson is definately at the root of most of the problems that the Grizzlies had. Looking back at his tenure as GM, there are a lot of missteps.

First, the draft history:
1995: Bryant Reeves (drafted 6th overall). Reeves' entire problem stems from the fact that he was a tub for practically all his NBA career, and the huge contract extension that Stu Jackson gave him removed all incentive for him to shape up and earn his paycheque. Although the draft was fairly weak (especially in terms of centers), the Grizzlies still could've taken eventual ROY Damon Stoudamire

1996: Shareef Abdur-Rahim (3rd overall). No qualms with this pick. Shareef was the backbone of Vancouver for practically its entire existance. Sure, there were some better players later on like Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, & Ray Allen, but Shareef held his own and was probably the best pick of the Jackson era

1997: Antonio Daniels (4th overall). The 2nd poor selection. Daniels was in way over his head trying to run the Grizzlies' offense. Still, this was another weak draft, and the Grizz might not have been any better off taking someone like Tracy McGrady who would've also needed time to develop.

1998:Mike Bibby (2nd overall). While Bibby was always solid during his Vancouver tenure, Jackson passed up on several solid players. One that could've made a difference was Vince Carter. Perhaps if his high-flying antics had been in Vancouver there would've been more of an effort to keep the team around.

1999: Steve Francis (2nd overall). Perhaps the worst draft pick of the bunch. Francis' crybaby routine was a black eye for the organization, and one that they could've avoided with a better screening process on the prospects. I find it hard to believe that Francis could've been so disheartened and not made his feelings known to anyone before hand. Still on the board then were Baron Davis, Richard Hamilton, Corey Maggette, Lamar Odom, and Shawn Marion.

2000: Stromile Swift (2nd overall). People have proclaimed Swift the worst 2nd overall pick ever in the NBA draft. all that potential that he never lived up to. However, this was a pretty sparse field.

So there you go for draft picks. Out of the Grizzlies' 5 years of drafting, they had 2 good picks and 3 bad ones.

Jackson's trading history didn't fare any better. He brought in a mixture of malcontents (Otis Thorpe, Othella Harrington, Doug West) and underachievers (Charokee Parks, Antoine Carr, Isaac Austin), and a whole lot of people who shouldn't have ever set foot on an NBA court. You can't blame people for not supporting a crappy product, and at times the Grizzlies looked to be intent on putting the crappiest product they could out there.

Of course, the stupid expansion rule that the Grizzlies weren't allowed a 1st overall pick for several years didn't help matters. I wonder why that rule had to go through when the Bobcats never had any such issues later on.

Dolemite
01-21-2007, 02:11 AM
It's because Vancouverites aren't real basketball fans, they're bandwagoners who don't know the game and didn't deserve a team.:sarcasm: Stupid Stern trying to expand into the ice belt!

::cough:: Colorado Rockies (NHL) ::cough:: :sarcasm:

gimme a g
gimme an o
gimme another o
gimme a g
gimme an l
gimme an e

what's that spell?

It spells...

gimmeaggimmeanogimmeanotherogimmeaggimmeanlgimmean e!!!

chaosrevolver
01-21-2007, 03:33 AM
Stu Jackson is definately at the root of most of the problems that the Grizzlies had. Looking back at his tenure as GM, there are a lot of missteps.

First, the draft history:
1995: Bryant Reeves (drafted 6th overall). Reeves' entire problem stems from the fact that he was a tub for practically all his NBA career, and the huge contract extension that Stu Jackson gave him removed all incentive for him to shape up and earn his paycheque. Although the draft was fairly weak (especially in terms of centers), the Grizzlies still could've taken eventual ROY Damon Stoudamire

1996: Shareef Abdur-Rahim (3rd overall). No qualms with this pick. Shareef was the backbone of Vancouver for practically its entire existance. Sure, there were some better players later on like Kobe Bryant, Steve Nash, & Ray Allen, but Shareef held his own and was probably the best pick of the Jackson era

1997: Antonio Daniels (4th overall). The 2nd poor selection. Daniels was in way over his head trying to run the Grizzlies' offense. Still, this was another weak draft, and the Grizz might not have been any better off taking someone like Tracy McGrady who would've also needed time to develop.

1998:Mike Bibby (2nd overall). While Bibby was always solid during his Vancouver tenure, Jackson passed up on several solid players. One that could've made a difference was Vince Carter. Perhaps if his high-flying antics had been in Vancouver there would've been more of an effort to keep the team around.

1999: Steve Francis (2nd overall). Perhaps the worst draft pick of the bunch. Francis' crybaby routine was a black eye for the organization, and one that they could've avoided with a better screening process on the prospects. I find it hard to believe that Francis could've been so disheartened and not made his feelings known to anyone before hand. Still on the board then were Baron Davis, Richard Hamilton, Corey Maggette, Lamar Odom, and Shawn Marion.

2000: Stromile Swift (2nd overall). People have proclaimed Swift the worst 2nd overall pick ever in the NBA draft. all that potential that he never lived up to. However, this was a pretty sparse field.

So there you go for draft picks. Out of the Grizzlies' 5 years of drafting, they had 2 good picks and 3 bad ones.

Jackson's trading history didn't fare any better. He brought in a mixture of malcontents (Otis Thorpe, Othella Harrington, Doug West) and underachievers (Charokee Parks, Antoine Carr, Isaac Austin), and a whole lot of people who shouldn't have ever set foot on an NBA court. You can't blame people for not supporting a crappy product, and at times the Grizzlies looked to be intent on putting the crappiest product they could out there.

Of course, the stupid expansion rule that the Grizzlies weren't allowed a 1st overall pick for several years didn't help matters. I wonder why that rule had to go through when the Bobcats never had any such issues later on.Ouch!

pitseleh
01-21-2007, 01:16 PM
It's unfair to criticize those picks in hindsight, if only because most were considered good picks at the time. I remember in Bibby's year, most thought that Bibby was going first overall with Olowkandi being the darkhorse. I remember Jordan saying that he thought Bibby was hands down the best player in the draft.

The Daniels pick was in a pretty weak draft. The bigger mistake with Daniels was the Grizzlies insistence that he could come in and just run the offense.

The mistake with Bryant was giving him the big contract. He wasn't in shape and had injury problems, so it was a stupid thing to do.

Francis was a bad pick, if only because they let the whole thing get public. For some reason, I remember that Jackson really liked Odom, but for some reason or another they went with Francis. They should have at least traded down if that was the case.

Jackson was terrible when it came to trades. Another one to mention was the Otis Thorpe trade for a first rounder. The pick ended up being the 2nd overall in LeBron's year. Imagine the Grizzlies could have selected Carmelo.

TorontoSports
01-21-2007, 02:10 PM
It's unfair to criticize those picks in hindsight, if only because most were considered good picks at the time. I remember in Bibby's year, most thought that Bibby was going first overall with Olowkandi being the darkhorse. I remember Jordan saying that he thought Bibby was hands down the best player in the draft.

The Daniels pick was in a pretty weak draft. The bigger mistake with Daniels was the Grizzlies insistence that he could come in and just run the offense.

The mistake with Bryant was giving him the big contract. He wasn't in shape and had injury problems, so it was a stupid thing to do.

Francis was a bad pick, if only because they let the whole thing get public. For some reason, I remember that Jackson really liked Odom, but for some reason or another they went with Francis. They should have at least traded down if that was the case.

Jackson was terrible when it came to trades. Another one to mention was the Otis Thorpe trade for a first rounder. The pick ended up being the 2nd overall in LeBron's year. Imagine the Grizzlies could have selected Carmelo.


They were gone by then though. It sounds like your owners weren't any good either though. As I read, they didn't have deep enough pockets to support two teams and build an arena. Do the new Canucks owners have deep pockets?

Hasbro
01-21-2007, 02:37 PM
Jackson was terrible when it came to trades. Another one to mention was the Otis Thorpe trade for a first rounder. The pick ended up being the 2nd overall in LeBron's year. Imagine the Grizzlies could have selected Carmelo.
You can take some comfort in the fact Detroit didn't get anything out of that pick either.

mr gib
01-21-2007, 03:53 PM
They were gone by then though. It sounds like your owners weren't any good either though. As I read, they didn't have deep enough pockets to support two teams and build an arena. Do the new Canucks owners have deep pockets?

arthur griffiths's understood that tho and john mccaw came in - very deep pocket's - the first three year's of the franchise the nba had restriction's on how much the club could spend on player's -

God Bless Canada
01-21-2007, 04:36 PM
The other aspect that hurt the Grizzlies was scheduling. Worst time ever to enter the Western Conference. During the Grizzlies last couple years, the No. 8 team in the West was likely better than No. 1 in the East. I think there was one or two years that the Grizzlies had a winning record vs. the East, including one year when I think they had a 5-0 road trip against teams from the East.

When you're in a conference as strong as the West was at that time, there's no grace for screw-ups. Unfortunately, the Grizzlies had a slew of them.

People forget that Big Buffet Reeves actually had a really good 1997-98 season. In the second half of that year, he looked like the dominant centre that some thought he'd be in college. Then he got the fat contract. Then came the binge eating during the lockout. He never recovered from that.

While there were better picks than Abdur-Rahim in the 1996 Draft, he was wonderful during his time in Vancouver. At one time, he was hailed as the best-kept secret in the NBA by no less than Sports Illustrated.

Antonio Daniels was a flop, but it was a weak year. Bibby was a strong pick. Did others turn out better than Bibby from the 1998 draft? Yes. But at the time, it was the no-brainer pick.

The Grizzlies wanted Elton Brand in 1999. But Brand went first overall. They went with Francis, hoping he'd join the team. Francis used the crutch of he wanted to be a point guard. His heart was never in Vancouver. The Grizzlies actually got a decent package in return, as Mike Dickerson and Bibby played very well together, and Othello Harrington provided what started as a strong power forward presence. But when the sale of the Grizz to Laurie fell through, Harrington inexplicably said "it's a sad day for Vancouver." Harrington wasn't happy in Vancouver, either, and was quickly shipped out.

Stromile Swift was the exclamation mark on a doormat dynasty.

I don't know if David Stern really wanted to see the Grizzlies succeed. The NBA gave the team a series of obstacles to seemingly keep them from success. Vancouver won the lottery in 1999, and would have walked away with Brand, but they couldn't pick first until 2000.

Stern always wanted a team in Toronto. Vancouver came out of nowhere to get a team. Toronto got the all-star game, they got to be in the division they wanted to be in. Vancouver got tossed in the mid-west division, even though they'd be a much better fit in the pacific division. The NBA wanted the Toronto market. They wanted Vancouver's money.

mr gib
01-21-2007, 04:49 PM
The other aspect that hurt the Grizzlies was scheduling. Worst time ever to enter the Western Conference. During the Grizzlies last couple years, the No. 8 team in the West was likely better than No. 1 in the East. I think there was one or two years that the Grizzlies had a winning record vs. the East, including one year when I think they had a 5-0 road trip against teams from the East.

When you're in a conference as strong as the West was at that time, there's no grace for screw-ups. Unfortunately, the Grizzlies had a slew of them.

People forget that Big Buffet Reeves actually had a really good 1997-98 season. In the second half of that year, he looked like the dominant centre that some thought he'd be in college. Then he got the fat contract. Then came the binge eating during the lockout. He never recovered from that.

While there were better picks than Abdur-Rahim in the 1996 Draft, he was wonderful during his time in Vancouver. At one time, he was hailed as the best-kept secret in the NBA by no less than Sports Illustrated.

Antonio Daniels was a flop, but it was a weak year. Bibby was a strong pick. Did others turn out better than Bibby from the 1998 draft? Yes. But at the time, it was the no-brainer pick.

The Grizzlies wanted Elton Brand in 1999. But Brand went first overall. They went with Francis, hoping he'd join the team. Francis used the crutch of he wanted to be a point guard. His heart was never in Vancouver. The Grizzlies actually got a decent package in return, as Mike Dickerson and Bibby played very well together, and Othello Harrington provided what started as a strong power forward presence. But when the sale of the Grizz to Laurie fell through, Harrington inexplicably said "it's a sad day for Vancouver." Harrington wasn't happy in Vancouver, either, and was quickly shipped out.

Stromile Swift was the exclamation mark on a doormat dynasty.

I don't know if David Stern really wanted to see the Grizzlies succeed. The NBA gave the team a series of obstacles to seemingly keep them from success. Vancouver won the lottery in 1999, and would have walked away with Brand, but they couldn't pick first until 2000.

Stern always wanted a team in Toronto. Vancouver came out of nowhere to get a team. Toronto got the all-star game, they got to be in the division they wanted to be in. Vancouver got tossed in the mid-west division, even though they'd be a much better fit in the pacific division. The NBA wanted the Toronto market. They wanted Vancouver's money.

i think there is some cred to the fact stern did not want a franchise here - mark cuban was critical of stern concerning the mavs too - he mentioned if he had run his franchise the way the nba wanted it dallas would be gone too -

CanadianPantherFan
01-21-2007, 07:40 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/2001/07/04/sayitaintso_grizzlies/

TorontoSports
01-22-2007, 01:28 PM
The other aspect that hurt the Grizzlies was scheduling. Worst time ever to enter the Western Conference. During the Grizzlies last couple years, the No. 8 team in the West was likely better than No. 1 in the East. I think there was one or two years that the Grizzlies had a winning record vs. the East, including one year when I think they had a 5-0 road trip against teams from the East.

When you're in a conference as strong as the West was at that time, there's no grace for screw-ups. Unfortunately, the Grizzlies had a slew of them.

People forget that Big Buffet Reeves actually had a really good 1997-98 season. In the second half of that year, he looked like the dominant centre that some thought he'd be in college. Then he got the fat contract. Then came the binge eating during the lockout. He never recovered from that.

While there were better picks than Abdur-Rahim in the 1996 Draft, he was wonderful during his time in Vancouver. At one time, he was hailed as the best-kept secret in the NBA by no less than Sports Illustrated.

Antonio Daniels was a flop, but it was a weak year. Bibby was a strong pick. Did others turn out better than Bibby from the 1998 draft? Yes. But at the time, it was the no-brainer pick.

The Grizzlies wanted Elton Brand in 1999. But Brand went first overall. They went with Francis, hoping he'd join the team. Francis used the crutch of he wanted to be a point guard. His heart was never in Vancouver. The Grizzlies actually got a decent package in return, as Mike Dickerson and Bibby played very well together, and Othello Harrington provided what started as a strong power forward presence. But when the sale of the Grizz to Laurie fell through, Harrington inexplicably said "it's a sad day for Vancouver." Harrington wasn't happy in Vancouver, either, and was quickly shipped out.

Stromile Swift was the exclamation mark on a doormat dynasty.

I don't know if David Stern really wanted to see the Grizzlies succeed. The NBA gave the team a series of obstacles to seemingly keep them from success. Vancouver won the lottery in 1999, and would have walked away with Brand, but they couldn't pick first until 2000.

Stern always wanted a team in Toronto. Vancouver came out of nowhere to get a team. Toronto got the all-star game, they got to be in the division they wanted to be in. Vancouver got tossed in the mid-west division, even though they'd be a much better fit in the pacific division. The NBA wanted the Toronto market. They wanted Vancouver's money.

Actually stern did want the team in Vancouver as he wanted the new owner to stay there for a period of time before he could move the team, obviously once you're an owner the NBA can't stop you technically from moving a team and there was no local group from Vancouver that stern could have approved. Also stern didn't make the expansion rules for Vancouver and Toronto, it was the expansion comittee appointed by all the owners. Another thing is, Toronto never had an all star game. David Stern is a visionary out of all the other Commissioners.

mr gib
01-22-2007, 04:00 PM
Actually stern did want the team in Vancouver as he wanted the new owner to stay there for a period of time before he could move the team, obviously once you're an owner the NBA can't stop you technically from moving a team and there was no local group from Vancouver that stern could have approved. Also stern didn't make the expansion rules for Vancouver and Toronto, it was the expansion comittee appointed by all the owners. Another thing is, Toronto never had an all star game. David Stern is a visionary out of all the other Commissioners.

stern - thats a good one - signed gun toting pot smoking wife beating fan bashing gansta criminals -

http://www.thesportstruth.com/2006/10/david-stern-tells-nba-players-to-leave-guns-at-home.html

http://www.nbacriminals.com/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21735

BlueAndWhite
01-23-2007, 10:16 AM
The other aspect that hurt the Grizzlies was scheduling. Worst time ever to enter the Western Conference. During the Grizzlies last couple years, the No. 8 team in the West was likely better than No. 1 in the East. I think there was one or two years that the Grizzlies had a winning record vs. the East, including one year when I think they had a 5-0 road trip against teams from the East.


In the Grizzlies final year, they had a .280 winning %. Good for 14th overall, if they were in the East. The 8th seed in the West would have been the 6th seed in the East (just behind...the 5th seeded Toronto Raptors).

The year before that, the Grizzlies would have been 15th in the East. The 8th seed in the West would have been the 7th seed in the East (once again, behind the Toronto Raptors).

In 98-99, the Grizzlies were the worst team in the league, and the 8th seed in West would have been the 10th seed in the East.

In the years prior to that, the Eastern conference was stronger (i.e. the 8th seed in the West would not have have been a playoff team if they were in the East). However, those were the first few years of Expansion and the Grizzlies were the worst team in the league nearly ever year back then.


I don't know if David Stern really wanted to see the Grizzlies succeed. The NBA gave the team a series of obstacles to seemingly keep them from success. Vancouver won the lottery in 1999, and would have walked away with Brand, but they couldn't pick first until 2000.


The same rule applied to the Raptors. The Raptors won the lottery in 1996, the first pick that year was Iverson.

TorontoSports
01-29-2007, 12:10 PM
I don't get why Stu Jackson even chose francis knowing full well he didn't want to play for the grizzlies. Stu is such an idiot it's baffling.

Bruinaholic
01-29-2007, 09:04 PM
I don't get why Stu Jackson even chose francis knowing full well he didn't want to play for the grizzlies. Stu is such an idiot it's baffling.

without looking back at who was in the draft Francis could have been the best player avaible and would probably have good trade value?

Ogopogo*
01-30-2007, 01:19 AM
Vancouver is a bad sports city. If a team has a few bad seasons in a row, the people stay away. The Canucks experienced it in the 80s and nearly moved. The Lions experienced it in the early 2000s and the Grizzlies experienced it for most of their existence in Vancouver.

Wrong city to struggle in.

Grabner*
01-30-2007, 04:48 PM
The day Vancouver was given a team. THAT'S when it all went wrong.

TorontoSports
01-30-2007, 05:43 PM
Vancouver is a bad sports city. If a team has a few bad seasons in a row, the people stay away. The Canucks experienced it in the 80s and nearly moved. The Lions experienced it in the early 2000s and the Grizzlies experienced it for most of their existence in Vancouver.

Wrong city to struggle in.

There are plenty of markets like that, but even when the Grizzlies suck they were drawing pretty decently as expected with a underachieving franchise. I mean the Atlanta Hawks have drawn flies for so long but they haven't moved yet. Something was wrong in Vancouver, I dunno what it is (maybe the Canadian dollar at the time?). I could understand if they didn't sell out while they were winning, but they never were winning.

Edler Von Gud
01-30-2007, 05:58 PM
Vancouver is a bad sports city. If a team has a few bad seasons in a row, the people stay away. The Canucks experienced it in the 80s and nearly moved. The Lions experienced it in the early 2000s and the Grizzlies experienced it for most of their existence in Vancouver.

Wrong city to struggle in.

It is not a bad city at all, if Vancouver is a bad sports city, then all those cities in the South with hockey teams are "bad sports cities". Basketball could work in Vancouver just like hockey has worked in some cities in the south, but when you have the single worst GM in NBA history, horrible management, and a totally pathetic product naturally attendence will drop as people don't like to fork over their hard earned money to watch the same crap over and over. The fact that the players other than maybe Rahim weren't personable didn't help at all to grow the sport in BC, the players instead would just ***** about the stupidest things.

I love how you say "if the team had a few bad seasons in a row, the people stay away"....cept the grizzlies didn't have anything but pathetic seasons, they didn't give the city anything to get excited about at all. Please tell me fans of any team in any sport that would put up with a .220 Winning % over 6 seasons? that is beyond pathetic.

God Bless Canada
01-30-2007, 07:38 PM
Vancouver is a bad sports city. If a team has a few bad seasons in a row, the people stay away. The Canucks experienced it in the 80s and nearly moved. The Lions experienced it in the early 2000s and the Grizzlies experienced it for most of their existence in Vancouver.

Wrong city to struggle in.
Actually, Vancouver's a great sports city. Unless you're named the Montreal Canadiens or Toronto Maple Leafs, if you struggle, you're going to see your attendance drop. Do you want to go back in time and see the Oilers attendance when they hit rock bottom in the mid-1990s, and couldn't even get enough rink board sponsors?

The problem with Vancouver is there's so much competition for the overall entertainment dollar. There's so much going on with the local entertainment scene, and so much available recreation, that if you struggle, you're not going to be the place to be, and Vancouver is a buzz city.

I look at the Vancouver Indy, and it was a smashing success every year. The recent it died wasn't fan support - even after CART/Champ Car fell off the North American sports relevance map, it was huge in Vancouver. Fans packed the grandstands, partially because it's a good racing town, but also because it's an event. It wasn't just about the racing. But they had to move the Indy because of construction for the Olympics, and there wasn't another suitable venue. It's probably the biggest event loss for Champ Car/CART outside of the Indy 500.

The PGA event was a perennial leader in attendance and charitable donations. The event failed because they couldn't find a new sponsor, and the PGA doesn't allow events to survive without big sponsors anymore. It's a testament to Vancouver as a sports town that the tournament drew big fans even though the tournament was never able to draw the top players (for various reasons) and the tournament was held way out of the way in Surrey.

someguy44
01-30-2007, 09:35 PM
Vancouver is a bad sports city. If a team has a few bad seasons in a row, the people stay away. The Canucks experienced it in the 80s and nearly moved. The Lions experienced it in the early 2000s and the Grizzlies experienced it for most of their existence in Vancouver.

Wrong city to struggle in.


Some of your posts simply amaze me. You make such assanine assumptions and you're of course entitled to your opinion, but do you want to do some research first on the Grizzlies before you make a claim like that about Vancouver.

If Vancouver is a bad sports city, then Toronto would be the only good sports city in all of Canada. Montreal couldn't support the Expos and what exactly can Edmonton support if the cap never came in place? Hey, Chris Pronger and his wife thinks Edmonton is a bad sports city. If the Oilers had a record like the Canucks had in their entire existence, do you think the Oilers would still be in Edmonton?

someguy44
01-30-2007, 09:42 PM
I consider Arthur Griffiths's and whoever influenced him to sign Stu Jackson to be the beginning of the Grizzlies' problems. Ok, sign Jackson, but give him 2 years max instead of a 5 year contract for someone who's never proven he could be GM. That was an idiotic move. It was clear that after just one season, Jackson couldn't do squat, but that can be excuse since they were just an expansion team. When the 2nd season came and went, it was the same horrible mess. That should've been enough, but Jackson didn't get fired cause of his contract and cause the owner(s) still believed in him.

I can remember Arthur Griffiths's being esctatic and patting himself on the back for signing Stu Jackson. I always wondered why.

TorontoSports
01-30-2007, 11:58 PM
you know what, at the end of the day the grizzlies are gone because of the change of ownership. I mean the same thing may happen with the Sonics, and the new owners are asking for an arena that state of the art (not even decent). They know they aren't going to get it and the team may move to OKC. Does that mean seattle didn't/doesn't support the Sonics? Nope.

LOL, actually there are few Vancouver Grizzlies videos on youtube... I just searched...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=knQnCPaDGEk

Look, it's the Vancouver Mounties Logo!

The comments on their are pretty harsh too. All in all I hope Vancouver gets a team at some point down the road, could be a decent rivalry with the Trailblazers or Sonics.

Bileur
01-31-2007, 01:20 AM
They were simply the worst coached, and worst managed team in sports history. Milbury could have ran the team better and he can't even run a team in his sport of expertise.

The Ottawa Roughriders and then Renegades beg to differ.

Ogopogo*
01-31-2007, 10:30 AM
There are plenty of markets like that, but even when the Grizzlies suck they were drawing pretty decently as expected with a underachieving franchise. I mean the Atlanta Hawks have drawn flies for so long but they haven't moved yet. Something was wrong in Vancouver, I dunno what it is (maybe the Canadian dollar at the time?). I could understand if they didn't sell out while they were winning, but they never were winning.

I attended a Grizzlies game in 1999. The defending champion Spurs were in town with Duncan and Robinson. There is no way the crowd was larger than about 9,000.

If you don't go see the best team in the league, maybe you are the wrong city for a franchise?

Ogopogo*
01-31-2007, 10:31 AM
It is not a bad city at all, if Vancouver is a bad sports city, then all those cities in the South with hockey teams are "bad sports cities". Basketball could work in Vancouver just like hockey has worked in some cities in the south, but when you have the single worst GM in NBA history, horrible management, and a totally pathetic product naturally attendence will drop as people don't like to fork over their hard earned money to watch the same crap over and over. The fact that the players other than maybe Rahim weren't personable didn't help at all to grow the sport in BC, the players instead would just ***** about the stupidest things.

I love how you say "if the team had a few bad seasons in a row, the people stay away"....cept the grizzlies didn't have anything but pathetic seasons, they didn't give the city anything to get excited about at all. Please tell me fans of any team in any sport that would put up with a .220 Winning % over 6 seasons? that is beyond pathetic.

I don't understand the reasoning "My team sucks this year - now I hate basketball".

When my team struggles I go to see key opponents.

For example, with the Oilers struggling this year, I have gone to see players like Ovechkin and I have tickets to see Kovalchuk and Hossa. People that stay away when the home team is bad simply aren't real fans of the game.

Ogopogo*
01-31-2007, 10:34 AM
. Do you want to go back in time and see the Oilers attendance when they hit rock bottom in the mid-1990s, and couldn't even get enough rink board sponsors?

.

Yes, the Oilers struggled in the 90s but, it was more of a protest against Pocklington than a city that didn't want to support their team. Once Pocklington was run out of town, things were back to normal.

To this day I think Pocklington's life would be in danger if he set foot here.

Ogopogo*
01-31-2007, 10:38 AM
Some of your posts simply amaze me. You make such assanine assumptions and you're of course entitled to your opinion, but do you want to do some research first on the Grizzlies before you make a claim like that about Vancouver.

If Vancouver is a bad sports city, then Toronto would be the only good sports city in all of Canada. Montreal couldn't support the Expos and what exactly can Edmonton support if the cap never came in place? Hey, Chris Pronger and his wife thinks Edmonton is a bad sports city. If the Oilers had a record like the Canucks had in their entire existence, do you think the Oilers would still be in Edmonton?

Montreal is a bad baseball city. Edmonton supported the team fine, you just lack understanding around the economics of NHL hockey and why the cap was necessary. I lived in BC long enough to see that any struggling team couldn't sell tickets.

TorontoSports
01-31-2007, 10:34 PM
Montreal isn't a bad baseball town, the expos were just a poorly run franchise and the fans were just SOL.

I mean that was the town that ushered the Jackie Robinson era.

someguy44
02-01-2007, 12:36 AM
Montreal is a bad baseball city. Edmonton supported the team fine, you just lack understanding around the economics of NHL hockey and why the cap was necessary. I lived in BC long enough to see that any struggling team couldn't sell tickets.

Ah, I have an economics degree and honestly Edmonton did not support the Oilers just fine. They would've lost money, yet again, last season if they did not go deep into the playoffs. They were on the verge of leaving Edmonton just before the lockout season. Star players were leaving Edmonton for poor quality player to nothing for the longest time cause the Oilers ownership could not support the overall salaries. Nor was the market in Edmonton built to support a big league franchise team. The city of Edmonton has less than a million in population and very little in corporate sponsorship for the Oilers.

Instead of just making claims, why don't you support them with some stats/evidence. And you still haven't answered my question. Would the Oilers still be in Edmonton if they had a losing record for their entire existence like Vancouver's? If you answer yes, then honestly you don't know a damn thing about economics or the city of Edmonton. Without the cap, they would've ended up the same way the Nordiques and Jets ended up. The Canucks had super crappy teams and still drew in crowds of 14,000. If the Oilers were in that boat (and I can't remember the last time the Oilers had a super crappy team and by that I mean they'd only get 10-20 wins in a season), what do you think the crowd numbers would be in Northlands or their new stadium?

Ogopogo*
02-01-2007, 10:15 PM
Ah, I have an economics degree and honestly Edmonton did not support the Oilers just fine. They would've lost money, yet again, last season if they did not go deep into the playoffs. They were on the verge of leaving Edmonton just before the lockout season. Star players were leaving Edmonton for poor quality player to nothing for the longest time cause the Oilers ownership could not support the overall salaries. Nor was the market in Edmonton built to support a big league franchise team. The city of Edmonton has less than a million in population and very little in corporate sponsorship for the Oilers.

Instead of just making claims, why don't you support them with some stats/evidence. And you still haven't answered my question. Would the Oilers still be in Edmonton if they had a losing record for their entire existence like Vancouver's? If you answer yes, then honestly you don't know a damn thing about economics or the city of Edmonton. Without the cap, they would've ended up the same way the Nordiques and Jets ended up. The Canucks had super crappy teams and still drew in crowds of 14,000. If the Oilers were in that boat (and I can't remember the last time the Oilers had a super crappy team and by that I mean they'd only get 10-20 wins in a season), what do you think the crowd numbers would be in Northlands or their new stadium?

The economics of NHL hockey is the reason for the Oilers financial challenges of the past - not fan support. 16,839 were in that building almost every night last year, is that your idea of no fan support? Having a million people (yes, it is a million+) does make Edmonton a smaller NHL city and that is a challenge but, being 29th in market size, the Oilers are actually 17th in revenue. What does that tell you? EXCELLENT fan support.

You might be a little young to know this but the Canucks averaged LESS THAN 9,000 per game in the late 80s. For a city with double the population of Edmonton, it is remarkable that they could average crowds that small.

someguy44
02-03-2007, 09:19 PM
The economics of NHL hockey is the reason for the Oilers financial challenges of the past - not fan support. 16,839 were in that building almost every night last year, is that your idea of no fan support? Having a million people (yes, it is a million+) does make Edmonton a smaller NHL city and that is a challenge but, being 29th in market size, the Oilers are actually 17th in revenue. What does that tell you? EXCELLENT fan support.

Wholly crap! Where did you get the insinuation that I thought the Oilers fan support was the reason why the Oilers struggled. In fact, I was pointing it out to you that Edmonton never had any losing season like the Canucks and hence never drew really low crowds. When the Nucks had the crappiest teams in the league, they were still averaging 14,000 seats a game. That's why I said if the Oilers were as bad as the Nucks it their history, do you think they would draw 14,000 seats a game in Edmonton.

It was never fan support that hurt the Oilers cause they never had a truly crapy team for years and years like the Jets or Nords (or even the Nucks to an extent). It was the players salaries, their arena, (before they moved into the new one), the small market they're in, and lack of corporate sponsors. Btw, why are you looking at last year's numbers for the Oilers? They made it to the Stanley Cup finals any they were only 17th in revenue out of 30? That's pretty brutal. Unless, that revenue number is at the end of the regular season, then it's another story. Even at 17th in revenue (let's just say at the end of the regular season), they were going to lose millions (before they went deep in the playoffs). Does that tell me that Edmonton can't support the Oilers just fine? Yes, it does.


You might be a little young to know this but the Canucks averaged LESS THAN 9,000 per game in the late 80s. For a city with double the population of Edmonton, it is remarkable that they could average crowds that small.

What makes you think I'm young? See what I mean. You've avoided my question yet again and changed the subject yet again. Answer my question. Do you think the Oilers would be in Edmonton if they never had a winning record and had a crappy record in their entire existence.

I didn't start watching hockey till 1989, but I'll take your word for it that they did draw 9,000 fans during the late 80's. That is actually quite a remarkable feat. They were drawing crowds of 9,000 and yet they're still in Vancouver to this date. Doesn't that say Vancouver is a good sports city to you unlike what you were suggesting. If they Oilers were drawing crowds of 9,000 for numerous years, do you even think that the Oilers would still be in Edmonton? Btw, in terms of population of the two cities, I don't know what you're referring to. The population of the two cities in the late 80's or the population of the two cities now? If it's now, then Vancouver has more than 3 times that population of Edmonton. If it's in the late 80's, then I don't know what the population of the two cities were.

Human Bean
02-04-2007, 06:16 PM
**** you Stu Jackson

PanniniClaus
02-05-2007, 11:01 PM
Thank goodness the Grizz went to Memphis. They have been nothing but a success there. Now Gasol will be traded and will they get max value? For the sake of the franchise they better.

BAuldie
02-06-2007, 12:24 AM
Edmonton supports the team just fine and have for the last few seasons. Their building is small and they don't have the advantage of all the big money luxury suites. The Oilers would still sell-out every game if their team sucked (what better is there to do there anyways :sarcasm: ).

Don't also forget what a large factor the improved canadian dollar played on the comeback of the Oilers.

TorontoSports
02-06-2007, 02:11 PM
Thank goodness the Grizz went to Memphis. They have been nothing but a success there. Now Gasol will be traded and will they get max value? For the sake of the franchise they better.

They haven't been a success at the gate, even with a playoff team. This year they are close to dead last in Attendance, that franchise will probably move again. Heisley is selling the team now and there are no local owners that are stepping up.

someguy44
02-06-2007, 10:43 PM
Edmonton supports the team just fine and have for the last few seasons. Their building is small and they don't have the advantage of all the big money luxury suites. The Oilers would still sell-out every game if their team sucked (what better is there to do there anyways :sarcasm: ).

Don't also forget what a large factor the improved canadian dollar played on the comeback of the Oilers.

Well, yes. In the last few years, they have supported their team just fine. They did make it to the finals last year so it's pretty hard not to make a profit from it. I was talking mainly about pre-lockout or if they had a really crappy team for years in a row. The poster above was saying Vancouver is a bad sports city and was also implying that Edmonton is a good one. I think that's not only misleading, but total bull crap. Vancouver is one of the largest international ports in the world and a world class city. With a market like Vancouver, it's pretty hard to be a bad sports city. The Grizzlies was never given a chance in the city of Vancouver not only because of bad management, but because of bad ownership as well. I say if the Grizz had Isiah Thomas as their GM and the Raptors had Stu Jackson as their GM, this thread might be about the Raptors not lasting in Toronto instead. Anyone can claim Edmonton to be a good sports city, but to imply it as a better sports city than Vancouver with absolutely nothing to back it up is absolute bull crap.

PanniniClaus
02-07-2007, 12:37 AM
They haven't been a success at the gate, even with a playoff team. This year they are close to dead last in Attendance, that franchise will probably move again. Heisley is selling the team now and there are no local owners that are stepping up.

I was being sarcastic. The Grizz have been the same farce in Memphis despite having somewhat more talent than the Vancouver edition.

TorontoSports
02-07-2007, 12:41 AM
Well, yes. In the last few years, they have supported their team just fine. They did make it to the finals last year so it's pretty hard not to make a profit from it. I was talking mainly about pre-lockout or if they had a really crappy team for years in a row. The poster above was saying Vancouver is a bad sports city and was also implying that Edmonton is a good one. I think that's not only misleading, but total bull crap. Vancouver is one of the largest international ports in the world and a world class city. With a market like Vancouver, it's pretty hard to be a bad sports city. The Grizzlies was never given a chance in the city of Vancouver not only because of bad management, but because of bad ownership as well. I say if the Grizz had Isiah Thomas as their GM and the Raptors had Stu Grimson as their GM, this thread might be about the Raptors not lasting in Toronto instead. Anyone can claim Edmonton to be a good sports city, but to imply it as a better sports city than Vancouver with absolutely nothing to back it up is absolute bull crap.

Hmmm, I doubt it. There was a groundswell of owners bidding for an NBA franchise in Toronto before the Raptors were born, including the current owner Larry Tenanbaum (sp) of MLSE. The griffiths were the only one picking up the bill on the NBA in Vancouver. When he left the picture so did the team. It was an ill-advised move from the get go and I don't know why the NBA gave him a team seeing how he didn't have nearly the financial backing that the groups in Toronto had. Are the new Canucks owners any better? It definitely makes a whole heck of a lot more economics sense having two tenants in one building under the same ownership nowadays than having one, or even worse two different ownerships in one building. Book all 82 dates.

monster_bertuzzi
02-07-2007, 01:16 PM
who's "Big Country"? Francis, Abdur-rahim? :dunno:

Abdur-Rahim was the only good memory we have of the Grizzlies...

monster_bertuzzi
02-07-2007, 01:17 PM
The economics of NHL hockey is the reason for the Oilers financial challenges of the past - not fan support. 16,839 were in that building almost every night last year, is that your idea of no fan support? Having a million people (yes, it is a million+) does make Edmonton a smaller NHL city and that is a challenge but, being 29th in market size, the Oilers are actually 17th in revenue. What does that tell you? EXCELLENT fan support.

You might be a little young to know this but the Canucks averaged LESS THAN 9,000 per game in the late 80s. For a city with double the population of Edmonton, it is remarkable that they could average crowds that small.




You do remember how bad the Canucks were in the 80's down you? I dont give a **** if there were 2 million people in the city, 9000 fans was generous.

TorontoSports
02-07-2007, 03:29 PM
Abdur-Rahim was the only good memory we have of the Grizzlies...

What about Mike Bibby?

mr gib
02-07-2007, 04:04 PM
for what it's worth bill walton - in town to honour steve nash - http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Basketball/NBA/2007/02/05/3531611-24hvan.html -

said it was a big mistake for the nba to leave vancouver -

caniacgirl12
02-07-2007, 04:26 PM
Folks, you need to argue the post and not the poster.

monster_bertuzzi
02-07-2007, 05:16 PM
What about Mike Bibby?

Meh, he did pout and frown when he was drafted by us - and he wasn't anywhere near the player he turned out to be with the Kings while he was here.

TorontoSports
02-08-2007, 11:14 AM
for what it's worth bill walton - in town to honour steve nash - http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Basketball/NBA/2007/02/05/3531611-24hvan.html -

said it was a big mistake for the nba to leave vancouver -

where did he say that?

Nalyd Psycho
02-10-2007, 06:00 AM
They haven't been a success at the gate, even with a playoff team. This year they are close to dead last in Attendance, that franchise will probably move again. Heisley is selling the team now and there are no local owners that are stepping up.
It would be absolutly awesome if they returned to Vancouver...

Didn't Stu Jackson have the chance to trade the Daniels pick for Steve Nash?

Not only was Stu Jackson a horribly GM, he was also an ass who treated Vancouver fans like crap. He would always do the exact opposite of what the fans wanted. Most notably being taking Francis over Odom.