Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Signs Of Tanking?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    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.

    Comment


    • #92
      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.

      Comment


      • #93
        Craiger wrote: View Post
        and this is exactly what bothers me when people (not talking about yourself here) talk about tanking as 'luck' or 'there are no guarantees'.

        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
        That's not the only plan. I already said that was only one option, and the only reason I even brought it up is because someone mentioned re-signing Gay/Lowry would destroy our flexibility moving forwards... that is false.

        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 8, 2013, 10:53 AM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Xixak wrote: View Post
          That's not the only plan. I already said that was only one option, and the only reason I even brought it up is because someone mentioned re-signing Gay/Lowry would destroy our flexibility moving forwards... that is false.

          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.
          The historical data about the draft holds a lot less weight in this case. We're not talking about a hypothetical draft - we know what the 2014 draft looks like and many experts are calling it amongst the most stacked of all time.

          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.

          Comment


          • #95
            Fully wrote: View Post
            The historical data about the draft holds a lot less weight in this case. We're not talking about a hypothetical draft - we know what the 2014 draft looks like and many experts are calling it amongst the most stacked of all time.

            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.
            2003 was also a historically great draft and it had 4 "superstars". 1 whom we had and was never able to be a #1 guy and lead us to more than 47 wins.

            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 8, 2013, 11:07 AM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Nilanka wrote: View Post
              The Sonics traded Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis (although, I realize they haven't won a championship....yet).
              Actually Lewis left as a FA. He actually renounced his final two years of contract with Seattle, got that INSANE deal with Orlando and worked out a S&T between Orlando and Seattle.

              Comment


              • #97
                Xixak wrote: View Post
                .

                I'm not sure what an extension has to do with this. Young players or guys in their prime might not accept extensions because they feel they can get more on the open market. When it comes to having a player option/ETO in the last year of a contract, most star/near-star players will opt out to get more guaranteed money over a longer period of time. It just makes financial sense and almost always happens (why would you take 1yr at 19M and risk getting hurt when you can secure 4yr/60M?). CP3 and Dwight were unique circumstances. CP3 wanted to give LAC another year to prove that it's worth it for him to stay, without committing to the team long-term. Dwight was trying to please fans and opted in to look good. Both players would get maxed even if they missed an entire season due to injury or had a significant decline in production (see Dwight with LAL) because they are bona-fide superstars and arguably the 3rd and 4th best players in the NBA depending on who you ask. Jennings isn't even related to this topic because he's an RFA... and Monta Ellis is just another example of a guy opting out of his last year for more guaranteed years of income... so thanks for that.
                What does an extension have to do with it? How else is Gay going to be resigned?

                You need to pay attention in Math class.

                Your way:
                4 years/$60M*
                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

                My way:
                1 year/$19M
                4 years/$15M
                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 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.
                Monta turned down $36M and 3 years from Milwaukee. His inflated view of his own self-worth cost him $12M.

                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.


                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)
                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.


                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).
                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.

                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.
                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.

                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.

                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...
                BOOM! The money shot!

                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.

                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).
                Who compared them? If I implied that, sorry. They both are all-star calibre C's.


                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.
                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.

                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.


                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.
                Without the same talent and financial flexibility it is an apples to oranges comparison.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Xixak wrote: View Post
                  That's not the only plan. I already said that was only one option, and the only reason I even brought it up is because someone mentioned re-signing Gay/Lowry would destroy our flexibility moving forwards... that is false.

                  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.
                  First off

                  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
                  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 value

                  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.

                  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
                  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.

                  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 8, 2013, 11:21 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • Craiger wrote: View Post
                      The entire premise is flawed anyways. Why does the standard need to be 'trade best player AND championship'. Neither define tanking or what expectations are/should be.

                      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.
                      That Memphis deal is a bit of a misnomer when talking about "trading away your best players for the purpose of tanking".
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        What does an extension have to do with it? How else is Gay going to be resigned?

                        You need to pay attention in Math class.

                        Your way:
                        4 years/$60M*
                        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

                        My way:
                        1 year/$19M
                        4 years/$15M
                        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.

                        I don't think Gay is going to agree to an extension because of what you mentioned (the potential of having a stellar year). It's the same reason Ellis didn't. So scenario one is more likely. It's not like the CP3 situation because CP3 is a superstar and even if he tore his ACL/MCL and missed a whole year teams would be lining up to max him. Gay on the other hand would be fucked. PS: I do just fine in university level math thanks

                        Monta turned down $36M and 3 years from Milwaukee. His inflated view of his own self-worth cost him $12M.

                        I'm not sure how this matters. All players think that they can and will play better in the following season.

                        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.

                        Can you clarify what point you're trying to make here.


                        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.

                        Pretty sure BC just made that move to save face after missing out on Nash. And even if he didn't there's a difference between moving a lottery pick in a projected weak draft and a strong one like 2014. I did not say we have to or even should sign Lowry to a big extension. My sentiment is in line with what Ujiri said. See how they play this year then talk about $$$ at the end of the season.

                        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.

                        Actually yes you would.


                        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.

                        Right but you need to draft those highly talented players first or your idea is kaput. It's very possible and actually more likely to continue to get screwed by bad picks or ping pong balls year after year than it is to add talent. Look at the mediocrity of the players Cleveland has drafted since getting Irving.

                        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.

                        Why aren't we building that system?

                        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.

                        Actually it's very easy to get rotation players with these picks.

                        BOOM! The money shot!

                        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.

                        Idk why you keep suggesting that this is the one and only alternative to tanking. I've never said that we HAVE to keep this core together. What I said is that it's possible to while maintaining flexibility, and the fact is that around 20M in cap room would be available in 2015 even with Gay/Lowry re-signed for a combined 25M (which by your estimate is more than they would need to be paid).


                        But in point out that example you refuse to acknowledge the superior talent and financial flexibilitiy Indiana possessed.

                        How? Last year Hibbert was making 14M, Granger 13M, West 10M, Hill 8M with George's max extension looming. In years past they were tied into expensive deals like Posey's 7M a year, Foster's 6.6M a year, Tinsley's 5.5, Ford's 8.5 and Dunleavy's 9.7M. They had flexibility for a 1 year period, which they used to sign West for 10M a year.

                        Who compared them? If I implied that, sorry. They both are all-star calibre C's.

                        You said Jonas = Hibbert... Sorry to me an equals sign implies comparison.


                        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.

                        Many other teams have stacked up on draft picks before and failed to pull 3 potential HOF players with them.

                        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.


                        The problem with tanking is that it's very likely that we end up drafting players who take years just to get to the same level as Gay/Lowry or worse. You're a Raptors fan. We've had plenty of high picks in the past that have failed to pan out as superstars and result in a winning team. In fact most of them have not.

                        Without the same talent and financial flexibility it is an apples to oranges comparison.

                        No it isn't. How did Indiana acquire that talent?
                        .

                        Comment


                        • jimmie wrote: View Post
                          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.
                          I am 100% in favor if this. If you can get back that kind of value for Gay/Lowry then ship them out.

                          I just don't like the idea of trading them for the sake of a tank, getting out-tanked by crappier teams, not getting a star and ending up on the same 9th-12th seed treadmill for the next 5 years that we've always been on.

                          Comment


                          • Xixak wrote: View Post
                            I am 100% in favor if this. If you can get back that kind of value for Gay/Lowry then ship them out.

                            I just don't like the idea of trading them for the sake of a tank, getting out-tanked by crappier teams, not getting a star and ending up on the same 9th-12th seed treadmill for the next 5 years that we've always been on.
                            So we are on the same page.

                            I nor anyone else proposing tanking with the intention of getting better long term has ever suggested trading anyone for scraps and relying on Toronto's own draft pick as the only means of acquiring talent.

                            Comment


                            • Some of you guys are mistaking what I said about possibly re-signing Lowry/Gay as me being enamoured with our current roster. I'm not. I think it could work given the right scenario and the addition of another star via trade, FA, draft etc though. That being said the only thing I have a problem with is selling low on players with the goal of tanking in mind. It's just not a sound strategy, and has a very high chance of being unsuccessful. I'm all in favour of trading both of them (or anyone on the team for that matter) as long as we're getting positive value back.

                              Right now imo the market for those two is weak which is why Ujiri hasn't traded either. The Pistons offer of Charlie V + Stuckey is awful. Cap space doesn't do anything for you if your team is bad, because no one of merit will want to sign there.

                              Comment


                              • jimmie wrote: View Post
                                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.
                                From my perspective, a guy who is no capologist, statistician or number cruncher, i look at this raptors roster on the surface and see what is pretty much obvious as to why this team underperformed last season.

                                lowry was not a 100% in training camp due to injury the previous season. injuries mid season
                                6 new players (?)
                                fields injured
                                bargnani injured
                                valanciunas injury beginning to mid season
                                pg controversy
                                Gay trade mid-season
                                gay vison problems
                                roster revisions game to game basis
                                strategy conflict between GM and coach (?)

                                why are we basing a future subpar peformance of this team on a previous season that was pretty much a wash? and to think, they were only 4 games away from a playoff spot? without these issues, plus a much improved Valanciunas, dont you think this team is capable of doing more? dont know about you guys but im excited to see what this team can do.
                                Last edited by TheGloveinRapsUniform; Thu Aug 8, 2013, 11:46 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X