I didn't know "Xixak" and "compromise" go together..
I didn't know "Xixak" and "compromise" go together..
If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
However, a team must carry 12 players. If the team is below that number, then a minimum salary cap hold is applied to each empty roster slot to prevent the team from using all its cap space to sign a single player, then fill out the rest of the roster using exceptions to go above the cap. As such, having 6 empty slots means a little more than $3M of your cap space really isn't there. There's no renouncing of those cap holds.
There is also the age factor with AK-47 and AI relative to Gay. Gay will be 28 turning 29 in 2 off seasons. AI would have been closer to 31 than 30 and turning 32 in the 2014-15 season. That makes a big difference when talking a 4 year contract. Would anyone want to be paying AI $12M at 34/35? AK is 32 and will be 33 next summer. Big differences in circumstances.
Just to show I am in fact open to the possibility my opinion is wrong, there is going to be a sh!tload of money available next summer. Gay might look at this as an opportunity to cash in on a possible bidding war especially if he returns to 2 season ago form this up coming year.
Where are the Raptors going to get their George? Please don't say Gay or DeRozan because credibility is already on shaken ground.
Last edited by mcHAPPY; Thu Aug 8th, 2013 at 08:41 AM. Reason: Bold replies in the quote of someone else is quite annoying as things get missed.
"You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"Bruno Caboclo
And yes, I think they can all be flipped for good value, because other teams in win-now mode who need a PG who basically does everything well, or a SF who works as a primary option in the frontcourt, will be able to give value for them. If Luis freaking Scola merits a first-rounder to go sit on a bench, then certainly Rudy and Kyle and DeMar can all net us at least one first-rounder or more. And I'm not advocating we trade all of them, either. (I am actually inclined to keep DeMar - he still has upside, he's a great locker room presence, and I think if he learns true defensive chops under Casey - which seems very possible - his shot or lack thereof will become irrelevant to him justifying his contract.)
There are not guarantees in anything, and everything involves luck/chance/unforeseeable events.
The question shouldn't be what plan will work. Its what plan gives us the most realistic opportunity to work, specifically at the lowest possible cost.
Not only is having a plan of keeping the core the same + hoping to have a large amount of cap space 2 years from now not very plausible (if not impossible), what is the team going to be able to do with that unlikely cap space? Whats the opportunity cost of sacrificing 2 seasons of what would essentially be treadmilling to get to that point in time? Does it even create more upside potential than tanking?
"Tanking is building a team based on luck" - but a rarity in Indiana (who have also not met the 'championship' standard) with a team thats in an entirely different financial and talent situation is somehow a possible alternative.
I'm just not sure how I'll ever wrap my head around the logic
What about when a team just didn't bother to replace players lost to injury or FA? Miami did absolutely nothing in 2002/03 despite having a bad team the year prior and losing Alonzo Mourning. They were a bad team, everyone knew they were a bad team and did nothing to even try to become a good team. They ended up drafting 5th (Wade) and won a championship shortly after.
Or what about a team that traded their 'best player' and made it to the conference finals? Memphis traded Pau Gasol for future first rounders, an expiring contract and the rights to a player not in the NBA. They deliberately tanked. Its since helped lead them to a WC finals.
I can just as easily ask, name one team other than Miami, Chicago, LA, Boston, Houston, SA, Dallas, Detroit and Philly that have won a championship in the last 33 years? Therefore you must not be able to win a championship if you aren't one of those teams.
It's simple guys. As long as:
-We make the playoffs this year.
-Rudy Gay has an awesome year with his new eyesight and proves that he can be a 1b type player for a contending team, then decides to opt out and a) stay in Toronto and b) take a pay cut. Guys take pay cuts all the time after career best years so I don't see how this could work out otherwise.
-Kyle Lowry finally puts it all together for the first time in his career (along with staying healthy), becomes a top 10 point guard in the league and a) decides to stay in Toronto and b) does so for a reasonable cap hit.
-DeRozan gets his three point shooting up to 35% plus and becomes a better defender.
-JV turns into an all star calibre player at his position.
-T Ross completely bucks the nose dive he's currently on and becomes a player worthy of top 7 rotation minutes on a championship level squad.
-Novak is still a contributor in 2015 instead of the fringe NBAer he's been for most of his career.
-We nail our 2014 and 2015 first rounders (somewhere between 14-20) out of the park and they become immediate contributors for a championship level team.
-We lure a max level player to Toronto in free agency during 2015. This part is basically a guarantee based on precedent.
-Casey transforms into a championship level coach or Ujiri replaces him with one at the end of the year.
-We round out the rest of the roster with quality contributors who will accept dirt for pay....
Then we're laughing.
And drafting in the lottery requires sheer luck? There's a grocery list of dominoes that need to fall perfectly in the Raptors direction for the next two full years in order for the team to get to where you're claiming. And even then.... is it a contending team? There's still problems with fit, injury concerns, etc. that can derail things at any point.
I think the best plan is to accumulate assets and only make trades with the intention of improving the basketball team. You obviously disagree with that and that's fine. I look at the Raptors as similar to teams like BOS or HOU that had success with that strategy. Large markets that don't necessarily attract free agents easily.
No I do not mean our roster makeup is the same as either of those teams. And I also do not think those methods are foolproof either, I just think they have a better chance of success than tanking. The only teams that have really found success in the last decade by tanking are Cleveland (got a potential GOAT player), Orlando (Dwight) and OKC (3 top 10 players in back-to-back-to-back drafts is unprecedented).
The draft is not just throwing a dart at a dartboard with a blindfold, but yes it is HEAVILY based on luck and chance. I mean the whole process that decides the order is called a lottery which is defined as "A process or thing whose success or outcome is governed by chance." If you Google a synonym for "luck", "chance" is one of the first words to come up. So saying it's based on luck isn't outlandish it's factual.
For argument's sake let's say a superstar = a player who makes an All-NBA team. Matt52 used this earlier so I'm just going to go along with that for now. It's kind of silly to use 2011/2012/2013 drafts because there aren't many proven commodities yet and players haven't really come close to their ceilings so let's start from 2010 and go back for a decade. Now I'm assuming with a tank effort the goal is to get a pick in the top 5.
2010 - 1 (0 top 5)
2009 - 2 (2 top 5)
2008 - 3 (3 top 5)
2007 - 3 (2 top 5)
2006 - 3 (1 top 5)
2005 - 5 (2 top 5)
2004 - 1 (1 top 5)
2003 - 4 (4 top 5)
2002 - 3 (1 top 5)
2001 - 6 (2 top 5)
2000 - 1 (0 top 5)
So on average there are ~ 3 superstars/All-NBA players in the NBA per draft, approximately 56% of which you would need to "tank" to acquire (some players are sleepers and not considered top picks but end up being all-NBAers anyway). So let's be generous and round up again so ~ 2 superstars available in the tank range per year.
Let's assume for a second that we can trade Gay and Lowry with 0 players capable of contributing anything positive to our team coming back along with late 1sts from playoff teams. Now even if we were able to pull this off, I would still argue that Utah, Orlando, Phoenix and Philadelphia are worse than us in terms of proven commodities, and 2 of those teams play in the west (Utah PHX) where they will consistently be getting pounded by 50 win teams.
So that gives us about the 5th best lottery odds. Based on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_draft_lottery, we would have a 55.3% chance of picking in the top 5, and based on what I said earlier a 40% chance of getting a superstar in that slot, which would give us a 22% chance of landing a future All-NBAer and a 78% chance of not getting one and being in a worse position than before. And that's being extremely generous with the above circumstance of actually being able to just dump Gay and Lowry on another team. They would likely demand that we either just take expirings (Detroit) or take a bad contract along with a pick.
Last edited by Xixak; Thu Aug 8th, 2013 at 09:53 AM.
Secondly, I think you overestimate what it will take to get this team back to a bottom feeder. They won 34 games last year. 11 games under .500. And they needed a late season run against checked out teams to even get themselves to that point. You trade Gay + Lowry and you're looking at 20-24 wins I'm almost certain. That will get you in the heart of the lottery and a great shot at a top 5 pick.
I think you're underestimating just how bad those teams I mentioned are right now. Utah literally has 0 proven players and the same goes for Phoenix with the exception of Gortat and maybe Dragic. Philly is in the same boat and will be relying on Thad Young and Evan Turner to carry them. Orlando could be better depending on what their young guys do. Then there's also Boston who have an easier path to tanking than us if they so please with Rondo. I actually forgot to mention Sacramento and Charlotte as well (Jefferson isn't really a guy that wins you a ton of games because of how bad his D is). Milwaukee's best player right now is Larry Sanders and are going to rely on Mayo to score their points. If Bynum and Kyrie get hurt Cleveland would be awful as usual as well.
So actually saying we could finish 5th last is quite reasonable maybe even generous.
Last edited by Xixak; Thu Aug 8th, 2013 at 10:07 AM.
You need to pay attention in Math class.
Free agent at 32 signing for $15M? No.
*This is a major assumption especially if he has the stellar year that would make him worth resigning.
Total over 4 years: $60M
minus cost of insurance policy
Total over 5 years $79M minus insurance cost.
The key is when do you want to be an UFA? At 28/29 or 31/32?
The Chris Paul situation sounds very like Gay in Toronto to be honest. But it doesn't fit your opinion so I get the dismissive reply.
Monta turned down $36M and 3 years from Milwaukee. His inflated view of his own self-worth cost him $12M.Monta Ellis is about the same age as Gay and also opted out of a bigger final year to take less money per year for more years. LBJ, Wade, Bosh and STAT also all opted out in 2010 around Gay's age as well. I wish there was a list somewhere of players who have opted out so I could find more examples. Can't think of them off the top of my head.
You miss the point referring to LBJ, Wade, Bosh. I don't know how old you are but prior to 2010 there was a belief that players never leave money on the table. Bosh even said the advice given to him by former all-star was make as much money as you can. Wade/LBJ/Bosh leaving money on the table to play together was unprecedented. So while you think players "always" take guaranteed money and years over a big one year salary that can hardly be considered a certainty especially when considering insurance policy possibility and Gay's age relative to the examples of AI and AK-47 you gave initially.
Lowry was traded last season for cap space and a lottery draft pick. Bledsoe returned Dudley - the two 2nd round picks got Redick from Milwaukee. The very fact Lowry is not considered to be a hot commodity next summer is exactly why the Raptors should not be boxing themselves on to the treadmill by signing him to a large contract.Maybe not, but let's not forget what Bledsoe got traded for (to PHX along with Butler for Redick and Dudley), and he was a hotter commodity than Lowry is going to be (barring Lowry going HAM this season like he did at the start of 11-12 and 12-13)
I didn't say anything about a max guy. The fact is even renouncing Amir you wouldn't have enough to sign a max guy if you have a player will to come to Toronto with MAX abilities.I didn't say we could get a max guy while signing Amir, that's not possible. But if we did strike out in FA or sign a cheaper player, he could always be re-signed. You only renounce his bird years if you have a deal for a top guy in place (kind of like what GSW did with Jack/Landry).
Building through the draft doesn't mean drafting one player in one year and competing for championships immediately. Building through the draft combines the low cost of highly talented players on rookie contracts with the flexibility cap space in trades and free agency.Aren't you in favor of building via the draft. I don't see how a rookie can't contribute off the bench if you actually make good picks in the mid-round especially since everyone says the 2014 class is loaded (and btw it's only 1 rookie, the 2014 pick would be a sophomore at that point). The Spurs pull this off almost every year, sometimes even without first rounders: Hill in 2008, Blair in 2009, Neal (undrafted) + Splitter in 2010, Leonard in 2011, Joseph in 2012, and just watch Jean-Charles or Thomas be solid for them off the bench in 2013. This is how the Spurs are able to field title contenders while staying under the tax threshold. Instead of wasting money on FAs to fill out the bench, they do excellent scouting and use prospects, cheap veterans and cast-offs to fill out the bench.
Your example of the Spurs is shortsighted. Does Toronto have the offensive or defensive systems of San Antonio? The talent? The coaching? No to all. Teams that are contenders are drafting for need and inserting players in to situations few lottery picks ever enter.
But even relying on late first round picks, second round picks, and undrafted players is certainly much more statistically unlikely than drafting in the top 5/6.
BOOM! The money shot!Dude we wouldn't be paying him at age 33. If he opts out at the end of the year and we re-sign him, he'd be starting his new deal at 27/28 which means he'd be 31/32 at the end of it. So basically we'd have him for his prime...
So you're willing to jump on the treadmill for 4 years of Gay/Lowry and then start over with JV already on a max or near max deal when he is 24? That is the entire point of the discussion you seem to forget. Keeping the core as is guarantees nothing. There is no flexibility. There is nothing to indicate anything more than a .500 team as is and assuming JV becomes dominant, maybe, they get a 5/6 seed.
All I said is that Jonas is our 20 year old future all-star. I never said the Raptors have the same or even a similar makeup to Indiana, or should even try to copy their roster makeup. I was just pointing out an example of a team that successfully built a title contender w/o ever tanking to do so.
But in point out that example you refuse to acknowledge the superior talent and financial flexibilitiy Indiana possessed.
Who compared them? If I implied that, sorry. They both are all-star calibre C's.Btw I don't really see how Jonas is a Roy Hibbert type player. Hibbert is 7'2 280 and has one of the longest wingspans in the league, he's also a defensive player. Jonas strikes me as more of a Pau Gasol type with a combination of finesse/strength and a focus on the offensive side of the ball. Defense is something he's going to need to develop, it's not why he got drafted (like it was for Roy).
Why did OKC manage to pull that off? They stacked up on draft picks. What do people who want to trade Lowry/Gay/DeRozan want in return? Draft picks and young talent and expirings.I'm aware that most teams draft a star. But how many teams tank to draft multiple stars to their team successfully? Looking at that list only OKC managed to pull that off. Boston and San Antonio also drafted multiple All-NBAers but only really "tanked" for one of them. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect Jonas to be on that list that you posted someday.
Toronto already is ahead of the game in getting multiple stars. JV is a star in the making and I agree he will be on that list someday. Toronto is in the rare position of starting a rebuilding project with the hardest position in the game to acquire filled with possible all-star talent, pieces with value for teams trying to make the playoffs on the roster, and leading in to a draft with multiple high end talent at the top of the draft (granted a lot can happen in a year).
You keep talking about tanking. The Raptors only won 34 games! < .500 ball after trade. We're not talking about blowing up a championship contender.
Without the same talent and financial flexibility it is an apples to oranges comparison.The only similarity I'm pointing to is building without tanking. I'm not suggesting that we need to go out and get our own versions George, Granger, West and Hibbert.
"You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"Bruno Caboclo
The very premise that I disagree with accumulating assets or improving the team, is a strawman. Where we disagree is the best way to go about doing that. Draft picks themselves are assets (the higher the more valuable), future cap space if used right can be an asset, players such as Gay or Lowry etc could also accumulate assets even if the team loses games in the mean time, giving Ross/Val/Acy more time and touches to develop could increase their asset valueI think the best plan is to accumulate assets and only make trades with the intention of improving the basketball team. You obviously disagree with that and that's fine
I'm also very much for improving the team, but I think that improvement will be in the long run rather than the short term. I think that offers much more upside.
putting aside that alot of this is based on assumptions of what would/could happen in terms of wins and losses vs the competition, is arbitrily called 'conservative', and does not take into account the potential value in this coming draft.which would give us a 22% chance of landing a future All-NBAer and a 78% chance of not getting one. And that's being extremely generous
What are the chances of netting a superstar any other way? What are the odds of trading for a superstar, particularily without giving up the necessary assets to maintain winning? What are the odds that this team has the assets necessary to do that? What are the odds of having the necessary cap space to sign a superstar? And then what are the odds of actually signing said superstar?
And why can't we also consider looking at that pick itself as an asset, that itself could be used in some other fashion (ie. your example of Boston), if Masai isn't getting the player he wanted/expected?
22% sounds low, it sounds lucky. But when you comapre it to nothing its a meaningless number.
Don't play roulette we know the odds and they aren't in your favour. Play a slot machine instead because I have no idea what those odds are.
Last edited by Craiger; Thu Aug 8th, 2013 at 10:21 AM.
Maybe this will help: Let's not trade Gay/Lowry/Derozan/some combination thereof for the sole purpose of getting worse and tanking for the draft.
Let's trade them/some combination thereof because doing so will give Toronto a chance to get better/move closer to *real* playoff contention (vs. annual 7/8 seeds) within the next 3-5 years (Jonas' -- the only current potential "franchise player" -- window).
During that 3-5 period, the Raptors should be doing everything in their power to maximize that potential, and that means that certain players -- and this is important for people like Xixak -- who don't fit so well with that 3-5 year plan, but might still be attractive to others (like Gay and Lowry especially) become assets to bring back other players/picks/financial flexibility that do fit the plan.
It's not that those guys suck, it's that they aren't providing max value in Toronto, for what Toronto needs. They'd probably be a better fit elsewhere, and Toronto could probably benefit from what they'd bring in return. That said, there's also no need to jump at shadows; with no real expectations, Ujiri can bide his time and wait until other teams are more desperate to fill holes, shed cap, etc.
Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.
1. WITH Pau, they were a 22 win team the year before. WITH Pau, they were on course to be even less than a 22 win team, though they ended up being exactly a 22 win team again, without him. In effect, they were already a bottom feeder with him, and no more of a bottom feeder without him, so trading him had zero "tanking effect". Side note: they also got 2 first rounders in that deal.
2. Just like the Seattle "tank" was unique (owner didn't give a damn about fans in the seats because his whole intent was to move the team), the Memphis deal was influenced by the owner (Heisley) wanting the team made more attractive (less financial commitments) to a potential buyer. Neither of those scenarios applies here. At least I hope not, because I'm nogt crazy about the Raps playing out of an American city.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)