Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SI: Raps "due for most constructive season without making playoffs"

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

  • #16
    Rapstor4Life wrote: View Post
    Bargnani come Hell Or High Water cost us so many games last season.....
    He only played 35 games last season....
    "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

    Comment


    • #17
      I will take a constructive season. When was the last time the Raps had one of those?

      Comment


      • #18
        blackjitsu wrote: View Post
        I will take a constructive season. When was the last time the Raps had one of those?
        It depends if you're still drinking the BC cool aid or not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Fully wrote: View Post
          It'd be much more irresponsible for the writer to extrapolate a .500 record for the Raptors next season based on an 18-18 stretch to end this past year, especially when a bunch of those victories came in the schedule's final days when the Raps were playing lottery teams or playoff squads that were resting key players.

          People are quick to forget that prior to the aforementioned stretch where the Raptors won 6 of 7 to close the year... they were 5-15 in the previous 20 games before that. They got marginally better after the trade but they weren't world beaters... They saw a big surge immediately after Gay got here (the honeymoon phase), had a misleading winning streak to end the year, and sandwiched between those two stretches was the same bad Raptors team.

          Does no one remember when the team had a brief bit of hope that they could fight back into the playoff picture and then lost to the Wizards, Cavs and Bucks within a week?

          Plus there's just so much wrong with taking a small sample size and trying to stretch it out over a full year. The Raptors went 12-11 over a 23 game stretch last year with Ed Davis and Calderon playing key roles prior to the Gay trade... Was that roster a 46 win team over a full season? Good god no.
          I agree with everything you're saying..... I just want to throw in my 2 cents that we ALWAYS lose to the Bucks, John Wall was playing HAM and everybody seems to think that the Cavs are better than us anyway. Obviously we wanted to win those games but it's not like we were considered to be far above those guys, and in fact we're slated to be worse them this year by most opinions. Even as I'm writing this I don't really know my point. I guess I just wanted to say that as heartbreaking as it was, those games aren't as easy to win as the schedules would suggest.
          "This just in........ THE RAPTORS ARE AMAZING!"

          Comment


          • #20
            Mundy wrote: View Post
            I agree with everything you're saying..... I just want to throw in my 2 cents that we ALWAYS lose to the Bucks, John Wall was playing HAM and everybody seems to think that the Cavs are better than us anyway. Obviously we wanted to win those games but it's not like we were considered to be far above those guys, and in fact we're slated to be worse them this year by most opinions. Even as I'm writing this I don't really know my point. I guess I just wanted to say that as heartbreaking as it was, those games aren't as easy to win as the schedules would suggest.
            I'm not saying that those games should have been easy wins for the Raptors. The fact that they weren't is kind of the whole point.

            For the record I think the team will flirt with 40 wins next year if they play the season out, but I'm convinced that the tear down is inevitable (which the SI writer seems to agree with, except he calls it "personnel cycling"). I just don't think Raptor fans should be insulted or outraged when people refer to them as a 34 win team. Beyond the fact that the team actually only won 34 games last year, without the late season winning streak their record after the Gay trade would be on the same pace.

            Comment


            • #21
              Fully wrote: View Post
              I'm not saying that those games should have been easy wins for the Raptors. The fact that they weren't is kind of the whole point.

              For the record I think the team will flirt with 40 wins next year if they play the season out, but I'm convinced that the tear down is inevitable (which the SI writer seems to agree with, except he calls it "personnel cycling"). I just don't think Raptor fans should be insulted or outraged when people refer to them as a 34 win team. Beyond the fact that the team actually only won 34 games last year, without the late season winning streak their record after the Gay trade would be on the same pace.
              That and your other point was a great one - they also had a 5-15 stretch with Gay and a 12-11 stretch with Calderon at the point. Those sample sizes are just too small - you can make whatever point you want.

              I'd be fine with just saying "There's more talent on this roster than a 34-win team." With training camp and Casey hounding on the D again, they ought to be a bit better at least.
              "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

              Comment


              • #22
                Fully wrote: View Post
                I'm not saying that those games should have been easy wins for the Raptors. The fact that they weren't is kind of the whole point.

                For the record I think the team will flirt with 40 wins next year if they play the season out, but I'm convinced that the tear down is inevitable (which the SI writer seems to agree with, except he calls it "personnel cycling"). I just don't think Raptor fans should be insulted or outraged when people refer to them as a 34 win team. Beyond the fact that the team actually only won 34 games last year, without the late season winning streak their record after the Gay trade would be on the same pace.
                Haha, passive-agressive PC bullshit.

                You do make a good point. I'm ever the optimist so I think our ceiling this year is a bit higher but I wouldn't be surprised at all if we stumble out the gates and Ujiri drops a grenade in the locker room.... after Val has left.
                "This just in........ THE RAPTORS ARE AMAZING!"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Mundy wrote: View Post
                  ... after Val has left.
                  Get thee behind me Satan.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                    No but thats not the point. This Roster did not post 34 wins last year. Two seperate rosters combined to post 34 wins.
                    One of those Rosters performed much better than the other.

                    Extrapolating the record that the 2nd roster put up, which is what we are moving forward with, I think its unfair, and doesn't make much sense, to say this is a 34 win team.
                    It's dishonest to just pick one part of the season and saying we played .500 so there. Since you can pick and chose so can I. After the adrenaline died off from the Rudy Gay trade we went 5-15, before pulling off our 5 game win streak against teams that played their bench major minutes. We were tied with Washington for 29 wins before that. Right now we can't say that this will be a .500 team next year. The only thing roster has proven is that they can win 34 games, that's it.
                    Last edited by DG88; Thu Sep 12, 2013, 10:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      DG88 wrote: View Post
                      It's dishonest to just pick one part of the season and saying we played .500 so there. Since you can pick and chose so can I. After the adrenaline died off from the Rudy Gay trade we went 5-15, before pulling off our 5 game win streak against teams that played their bench major minutes. We were tied with Washington for 29 wins before that. Right now we can't say that this will be a .500 team next year. The only thing roster has proven is that they can win 34 games, that's it.
                      Except I'm not picking and choosing... I'm splitting the season into two very distinct portions. I thought that was clear.

                      And I'm not saying to call us a .500 team.
                      I'm just saying its misleading, slightly inaccurate and poor journalism to judge our "talent-to-cost ratio" as 34-wins, based off so many varying, and no longer existing, factors from last year.
                      Last edited by Joey; Thu Sep 12, 2013, 11:00 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I don't really care what thier record was after the Rudy trade. The thing that matters is that we played great D after that trade. If Casey can replicate that. Which is pretty likely. We're be in a lot of games. I don't know about y'all but, I feel a lot more confident in those close games with a player like Rudy Gay on our team.
                        @Chr1st1anL

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Given that the vast majority of a 34-win team is back, Toronto’s talent-to-cost ratio stands as among the league’s worst.
                          There are two clauses here.

                          Clause 1: ...the vast majority of a 34-win team is back...
                          Clause 2: ... Toronto's talent to cost ratio is among the league's worst.

                          I have no problem with clause one, if you were to identify the "core" players from last year I would say they are Calderon, Lowry, Bargnani, Derozan, JV, Amir, Davis, and Gay.

                          Of those 8, 5 are returning which is a majority and the team did win 34 games. That said, I can understand why people take issue with it and that's okay.

                          It's the second clause that has been largely ignored in this thread.

                          This team DOES have a crappy talent/production to salary ratio, and that statement (imo) holds true even if you change to the "34 win team" part of the first clause to ".500" level team.

                          This is a huge issue, and should not be ignored.

                          EDIT: I'm not hating on the Raptors and I do think that Ujiri is aware of this and is looking to rectify it, but just because clause 1 is debatable doesn't we can entirely through out clause two (even though grammatically it is a dependent clause [I think]).
                          Last edited by ezz_bee; Fri Sep 13, 2013, 03:09 AM.
                          "They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014

                          "I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015

                          "We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Chr1s1anL wrote: View Post
                            I don't really care what thier record was after the Rudy trade. The thing that matters is that we played great D after that trade. If Casey can replicate that. Which is pretty likely. We're be in a lot of games. I don't know about y'all but, I feel a lot more confident in those close games with a player like Rudy Gay on our team.
                            Definitely agree on the bolded. It's comforting knowing that when a possession goes to hell, and we need a shot created out of nothing, Rudy has the ability to bail us out.

                            A healthy Lowry should be able to do the same.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
                              Except I'm not picking and choosing... I'm splitting the season into two very distinct portions. I thought that was clear.

                              And I'm not saying to call us a .500 team.
                              I'm just saying its misleading, slightly inaccurate and poor journalism to judge our "talent-to-cost ratio" as 34-wins, based off so many varying, and no longer existing, factors from last year.
                              You don't think they deserve to be called a .500 team (41 wins) but you don't think they should be called a 34 win team either. Not trying to be an ass but what exactly were you looking for then? Referring to them as a 37 or 38 win team? It's really all the same when you're in that 30-42 win zone... Not good enough to be a real factor and not bad enough to draft in the top five. I think they call it the treadmill.

                              That's kind of the other part to this that Ezzbee touched on. Even if you are willing to extrapolate the break even record from last year to a full regular season in 2013-14... A .500 record really isn't any sort of accomplishment and is only marginally better than last year's season which we can all agree was a letdown. And it won't even guarantee you a playoff spot in next year's Eastern Conference.

                              Tear it down!
                              Last edited by Fully; Fri Sep 13, 2013, 09:07 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                ezz_bee wrote: View Post
                                There are two clauses here.

                                Clause 1: ...the vast majority of a 34-win team is back...
                                Clause 2: ... Toronto's talent to cost ratio is among the league's worst.

                                I have no problem with clause one, if you were to identify the "core" players from last year I would say they are Calderon, Lowry, Bargnani, Derozan, JV, Amir, Davis, and Gay.

                                Of those 8, 5 are returning which is a majority and the team did win 34 games. That said, I can understand why people take issue with it and that's okay.

                                It's the second clause that has been largely ignored in this thread.

                                This team DOES have a crappy talent/production to salary ratio, and that statement (imo) holds true even if you change to the "34 win team" part of the first clause to ".500" level team.

                                This is a huge issue, and should not be ignored.

                                EDIT: I'm not hating on the Raptors and I do think that Ujiri is aware of this and is looking to rectify it, but just because clause 1 is debatable doesn't we can entirely through out clause two (even though grammatically it is a dependent clause [I think]).
                                This is very true - it also leads straight back to the "tear it down" vs. "soldier on" debate. I'm guessing Ujiri's open to either, depending on how the first half (or so) of the season plays out.
                                "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X