Debate settled......

[S.R.]

It helps when you have one of the 50 greatest players of all time leading the charge

I wonder where DeRozan is on the all time list. 3,852 maybe?

3, 856, I say. Let's start a new thread and argue about this.

[stretch]

Except he turns it over more. He's not quite as good as Calderon with that level of control. And he's not as good a shooter. And he's about as bad a defender, but he's got better size there.

OK, a poor man's Calderon. Vasquez and Calderon are close in PER this season (14.52 and 14.74 PER) and turnovers also, 1.5 to 1.4 TOpg.

[stretch]

It helps when you have one of the 50 greatest players of all time leading the charge

I wonder where DeRozan is on the all time list. 3,852 maybe?

Drexler was on that team, too.

[Nilanka]

3, 856, I say. Let's start a new thread and argue about this.

Hmmm, good point. I forgot about Chris Gatling, Hershey Hawkins, and J.R. Reid.

[stooley]

lmao, but maybe one should wait until further moves before getting snotty and pounding one's chest. Amazing how some are so stuck on stu............ um stuck on their tank plans that they read stuff into MU's words and action that aren't there.

In this deal alone, there is absolutely nothing that fits into any scenario I've seen touted here as a tank plan. In general it's been stated dozens, if not hundreds, of times that the whole tank "plan" is:

1. Unload what talent there is, except JV, for prospects and picks. Neither of which was done with this trade. Neither Salmons or Hayes can possibly be called prospects. Patterson may have been considered one at some point, but if the tankers think DD isn't a prospect worth keeping at barely 24, Patterson at 5 months older is even much less developed. Vasquez, at almost 27 (and older than Amir btw, is Jose-lite with much less of a 3 pt shot.
Unloading Gray and Acy hardly fits in with unloading talent either.

2. Get worse over short term to enable getting better long term.
Hmmmm, MU got rid of the consensus team killer, between his very high TO rate, incredibly bad decision making, and historically bad shooting efficiency, a very good argument can be made that this move makes the better!
- whether that 1 game with out him is short-lived or not, it would only be guessing by anybody, but we saw more ball movement and more playmaking, and more use of all talents on the floor, than any game this year. That can hardly be seen as getting worse.
- Vasquez, despite his weaknesses, especially defense, is an instant upgrade on our backup PG spot. He ADDS to the ball movement and set up teammates concept we saw in LA.
- Hayes, an experienced and very savvy defensive big, is certainly an upgrade over street cloths wearing Acy.

So, we got rid of a toxic "talent" that was playing very poorly, and got upgrades in two areas. How exactly is that getting worse? (to get better later)

What this trade is?

1. unloading a crippling salary, especially with the uncertainty of whether he was what he was going to do with his upcoming option, for a handful of much more moveable contracts, all but one ending at the end of the season. Wise financial management, but that hardly makes it a "tank" move.

2. unloading a wasted "talent" that was hurting this team's play, and chances to win, in virtually every game, coupled with upgrading at both the PG and bigs depth.

Save the pompous chest-thumping until there is actually a "tank" trade that actually fits your proposed ideas of tanking.

Good point. I definitely don't see this as a championship move either though and given that Masai vowed to not be caught in no-man's land...

[S.R.]

lmao, but maybe one should wait until further moves before getting snotty and pounding one's chest. Amazing how some are so stuck on stu............ um stuck on their tank plans that they read stuff into MU's words and action that aren't there.

In this deal alone, there is absolutely nothing that fits into any scenario I've seen touted here as a tank plan. In general it's been stated dozens, if not hundreds, of times that the whole tank "plan" is:

1. Unload what talent there is, except JV, for prospects and picks. Neither of which was done with this trade. Neither Salmons or Hayes can possibly be called prospects. Patterson may have been considered one at some point, but if the tankers think DD isn't a prospect worth keeping at barely 24, Patterson at 5 months older is even much less developed. Vasquez, at almost 27 (and older than Amir btw, is Jose-lite with much less of a 3 pt shot.
Unloading Gray and Acy hardly fits in with unloading talent either.

2. Get worse over short term to enable getting better long term.
Hmmmm, MU got rid of the consensus team killer, between his very high TO rate, incredibly bad decision making, and historically bad shooting efficiency, a very good argument can be made that this move makes the better!
- whether that 1 game with out him is short-lived or not, it would only be guessing by anybody, but we saw more ball movement and more playmaking, and more use of all talents on the floor, than any game this year. That can hardly be seen as getting worse.
- Vasquez, despite his weaknesses, especially defense, is an instant upgrade on our backup PG spot. He ADDS to the ball movement and set up teammates concept we saw in LA.
- Hayes, an experienced and very savvy defensive big, is certainly an upgrade over street cloths wearing Acy.

So, we got rid of a toxic "talent" that was playing very poorly, and got upgrades in two areas. How exactly is that getting worse? (to get better later)

What this trade is?

1. unloading a crippling salary, especially with the uncertainty of whether he was what he was going to do with his upcoming option, for a handful of much more moveable contracts, all but one ending at the end of the season. Wise financial management, but that hardly makes it a "tank" move.

2. unloading a wasted "talent" that was hurting this team's play, and chances to win, in virtually every game, coupled with upgrading at both the PG and bigs depth.

Save the pompous chest-thumping until there is actually a "tank" trade that actually fits your proposed ideas of tanking.

You're absolutely right. This was a roster building move and MU's aiming for the playoffs. With a new backup point guard, a first round appearance is definitely in play. If he can just flip pieces like Novak and Hansbrough, or Lowry's expiring for a couple of all-stars, or at least a franchise cornerstone and an all-star, then this team will have serious aspirations moving forward.

Worst case scenario he'll hit the playoffs this year on the back of Patrick Patterson's phenomenal outside shooting, then use impending cap space to sign a league MVP-type player or two. Drafting just outside of the lottery for the next couple years will also help a lot.

I like the direction things are going! This is great!

[Nilanka]

lmao, but maybe one should wait until further moves before getting snotty and pounding one's chest. Amazing how some are so stuck on stu............ um stuck on their tank plans that they read stuff into MU's words and action that aren't there.

In this deal alone, there is absolutely nothing that fits into any scenario I've seen touted here as a tank plan. In general it's been stated dozens, if not hundreds, of times that the whole tank "plan" is:

1. Unload what talent there is, except JV, for prospects and picks. Neither of which was done with this trade. Neither Salmons or Hayes can possibly be called prospects. Patterson may have been considered one at some point, but if the tankers think DD isn't a prospect worth keeping at barely 24, Patterson at 5 months older is even much less developed. Vasquez, at almost 27 (and older than Amir btw, is Jose-lite with much less of a 3 pt shot.
Unloading Gray and Acy hardly fits in with unloading talent either.

2. Get worse over short term to enable getting better long term.
Hmmmm, MU got rid of the consensus team killer, between his very high TO rate, incredibly bad decision making, and historically bad shooting efficiency, a very good argument can be made that this move makes the better!
- whether that 1 game with out him is short-lived or not, it would only be guessing by anybody, but we saw more ball movement and more playmaking, and more use of all talents on the floor, than any game this year. That can hardly be seen as getting worse.
- Vasquez, despite his weaknesses, especially defense, is an instant upgrade on our backup PG spot. He ADDS to the ball movement and set up teammates concept we saw in LA.
- Hayes, an experienced and very savvy defensive big, is certainly an upgrade over street cloths wearing Acy.

So, we got rid of a toxic "talent" that was playing very poorly, and got upgrades in two areas. How exactly is that getting worse? (to get better later)

What this trade is?

1. unloading a crippling salary, especially with the uncertainty of whether he was what he was going to do with his upcoming option, for a handful of much more moveable contracts, all but one ending at the end of the season. Wise financial management, but that hardly makes it a "tank" move.

2. unloading a wasted "talent" that was hurting this team's play, and chances to win, in virtually every game, coupled with upgrading at both the PG and bigs depth.

Save the pompous chest-thumping until there is actually a "tank" trade that actually fits your proposed ideas of tanking.

The writing's on the wall, my friend. The tanking has started. This team is aiming for the lottery.

All this talk about better ball movement, team has more depth, etc., is all Doug Smith-esque fairy tale material.

[p00ka]

You're absolutely right. This was a roster building move and MU's aiming for the playoffs. With a new backup point guard, a first round appearance is definitely in play. If he can just flip pieces like Novak and Hansbrough, or Lowry's expiring for a couple of all-stars, or at least a franchise cornerstone and an all-star, then this team will have serious aspirations moving forward.

Worst case scenario he'll hit the playoffs this year on the back of Patrick Patterson's phenomenal outside shooting, then use impending cap space to sign a league MVP-type player or two. Drafting just outside of the lottery for the next couple years will also help a lot.

I like the direction things are going! This is great!

Great smartass, but I see you have zero argument for what you're responding to. Dumb snark, as smartass as you're trying to be, is still nothing but dumb.

[p00ka]

The writing's on the wall, my friend. The tanking has started. This team is aiming for the lottery.

All this talk about better ball movement, team has more depth, etc., is all Doug Smith-esque fairy tale material.

Well, at least you're not just trying to be smartass. Thank you. However, you're speculation is not responding to my points at all, which is that nothing about this trade fits the oft-touted "tank plan" that S.R. is pounding his chest about, calling out anti-tankers like y'all have somehow been validated by MU's trade, and you snarkely endorsed.

[stooley]

Well, at least you're not just trying to be smartass. Thank you. However, you're speculation is not responding to my points at all, which is that nothing about this trade fits the oft-touted "tank plan" that S.R. is pounding his chest about, calling out anti-tankers like y'all have somehow been validated by MU's trade, and you snarkely endorsed.

Well I think giving away Gay is an acceptance of the state of this team. Certainly, no talent was added here, so it hasn't pushed us in either direction.

Looking at the assets that we possess though, a realistic finish for us is the 8th seed.

Gay was the one player that people could point to and say, "well if he figures it out the raptors will get a lot better." There's not much upside to this team anymore in the short term.

MU's quote about not being in no man's land is more telling than anything else.

Also articles on ESPN and Grantland about the direction of the two franchises.

[Joey]

Well, at least you're not just trying to be smartass. Thank you. However, you're speculation is not responding to my points at all, which is that nothing about this trade fits the oft-touted "tank plan" that S.R. is pounding his chest about, calling out anti-tankers like y'all have somehow been validated by MU's trade, and you snarkely endorsed.

Masai flat out said during his press conference this move was made with the future in mind, and not made for wins this seson.
Not direct quote, but he absolutely said as much during his press-conference.

So while this doesn't reak of "'tank plan" move, it certainly does smell a little bit like a "build properly" move.

[Nilanka]

Well, at least you're not just trying to be smartass. Thank you. However, you're speculation is not responding to my points at all, which is that nothing about this trade fits the oft-touted "tank plan" that S.R. is pounding his chest about, calling out anti-tankers like y'all have somehow been validated by MU's trade, and you snarkely endorsed.

I admit the Gay trade (when viewed in a vacuum) could be argued either way (i.e. for or against tanking).

But when you factor in the following, the scales are heavily tipped in favour of the tanking route....at least in my opinion.

1. Masai's words of wanting to avoid "no man's land", which can be assumed to equal the state of the Raptors over the past 7 years (i.e. perpetual 8-12 seeds).
2. The once-in-a-decade draft talent available this summer
3. The fact that Lieweke wants championships, and winning championships without elite talent is damn near impossible (the 2004 Pistons is noted as a rare exception).

And what fun would internet arguments be without any chest-thumping? EDIT: Chump!

[CalgaryRapsFan]

I admit the Gay trade (when viewed in a vacuum) could be argued either way (i.e. for or against tanking).

But when you factor in the following, the scales are heavily tipped in favour of the tanking route....at least in my opinion.

1. Masai's words of wanting to avoid "no man's land", which can be assumed to equal the state of the Raptors over the past 7 years (i.e. perpetual 8-12 seeds).
2. The once-in-a-decade draft talent available this summer
3. The fact that Lieweke wants championships, and winning championships without elite talent is damn near impossible (the 2004 Pistons is noted as a rare exception).

And what fun would internet arguments be without any chest-thumping?

For anybody believing that the tank may not (or is not) be on, I would suggest watching the news conference from yesterday, where it was abundantly clear that MU was focused on the future. Everything he talked about was with regards to the future, with practically no mention of the current season. When mentioning the 4 players acquired in trade, he referred to the future flexibility their contracts provided, without saying anything resembling a positive impact they'd have in the ongoing quest for playoffs this season.

Prior to this trade and that press conference, I could understand how avoiding no man's land could mean tanking or going all-in for playoffs. However, after the trade and press conference, it's beyond me how anybody could believe that MU is seriously concerned with the playoffs this season. He's worried about the future, starting with cap space and draft positioning for this upcoming offseason.

[S.R.]

Great smartass, but I see you have zero argument for what you're responding to. Dumb snark, as smartass as you're trying to be, is still nothing but dumb.

I'm not about to attempt to convince you of anything. There are posts within this thread, and dozens more besides that directly address all of your points - and you've read most of them. That you're still raising the same "arguments" at this juncture shows you're not interested in "discussion" or adjusting any of your opinions. You're here to gloss over others' points and repeat yourself ad nauseam.

For example, my "smart ass" point is a satirical take on your own. Satire is one of the most useful and oldest forms of criticism. But you're not really interested in interacting with anybody at any kind of depth - you'd rather stand on the top of the play structure and yell at all the other kids. The irony of you tossing around the "chest thumping" label just shattered the scale.

[p00ka]

Masai flat out said during his press conference this move was made with the future in mind, and not made for wins this seson.
Not direct quote, but he absolutely said as much during his press-conference.

So while this doesn't reak of "'tank plan" move, it certainly does smell a little bit like a "build properly" move.

You're absolutely correct. Wise "build properly", which fits perfectly well with what some, if not most, of us "anti-tankers" as we've been labeled, are in full support of. What this move is, and I've detailed how it doesn't fit the tanking scenarios that keep getting pounded on (but nobody is answering), and what MU said, despite what some choose to read/speculate into it, is not tanking. At least, not on it's own. So, why the calling out of people who disagree with "the tank concept".

Another question: Is the definition of "tank" changing yet again? Us anti-tankers need to know just what the hell it is we're arguing against, and the tankers keep changing it,,,,,,,, if this is being called "proof" of a tank underway.