Yahoo! Sports' Adrian Wojnarowski has a great piece up about the Allen Iverson situation. It's mostly about the Clippers, but Wojnarowski's deservedly sour commentary on the situation applies to the Grizzlies even when he isn't directly addressing the franchise.
Why would the Los Angeles Clippers want to thrust Allen Iverson(notes) into the life of gifted young guard Eric Gordon(notes)? The answer is as simple as it’s flawed: box office over basketball. The worst owner in sports, Donald T. Sterling, believes A.I. can do what No. 1 pick Blake Griffin has been thus far unable — sell tickets. Perhaps the Clippers could give winning a chance, but Sterling is hell-bent on dysfunction.
Iverson is a bad investment for the Clippers. Iverson is a shell of himself now, and worst of all, he’s the last to know.
[Iverson] still thinks he can restore his starry reputation with a high-scoring season. Iverson still believes his chance to get one more big contract will be born out of a lot of shots and a lot of scoring. Those days are done for Iverson, who proved himself unwilling, and maybe incapable, of playing a complementary role with the Detroit Pistons last season.
The Memphis Grizzlies are offering the mid-level, too, but they’re just another desperate, wayward franchise that thinks Iverson can still sell some seats. It’s no accident that two of the worst owners in the NBA, Sterling and Michael Heisley, are pushing their basketball executives to chase one of summer shopping’s worst ideas: Allen Iverson. There’s a reason these teams are in the lottery every year, and here’s another why they’ll be back again.
Wojnarowski also has a more recent piece up about a potential three-way deal between the Grizzlies, Heat, and Jazz that would land Carlos Boozer in Miami:
The essentials of a possible deal would include Miami sending forward Udonis Haslem(notes) and Dorrell Wright to Utah. Because Memphis is under the cap, Utah could move Wright’s $2.8 million salary to the Grizzlies and save itself approximately $5.6 million with salary and luxury-tax payments. Memphis would probably get cash and picks for its trouble. The Heat would have to send one more small contract to make the math on the salary exchange work.
Depending on the particulars, this could be a positive deal for the Grizzlies. (I am not entirely opposed to the team working the league's transaction rules to make the franchise more financially stable.) However, as with so much of this offseason, the right question isn't whether something is a good move but whether it's the best move. The Grizzlies might be able to get something useful out of helping route Boozer to Miami. But if Utah wants a deal where they take back less salary, wouldn't it be better to see the Grizzlies make a deal to route Boozer here instead?