Rebuild ... What does it really mean ??

[golden]

I think that's fair. By year 3 they should be at least as competitive as the current squad, with a much higher ceiling and much longer window.

Some people seem to think that trading DeRozan and Lowry puts the Raptors on a path similar to Philly and other tank/rebuild-from-scratch teams. However, I don't think that's the case. The Raptors have JV, some young prospects, a couple decent role players, 3 1st round picks over the next 2 drafts, and tons of cap space... and that doesn't even factor in the trade return for DeRozan and Lowry, which should be pretty substantial.

Could it succeed quickly? Yes.

Could it fail miserably? Yes.

The strategy is sound, if executed by a skilled, committed, methodical GM (ie: stick to the plan, aka anti-BC) who thrives on talent evaluation and accumulation.

You're combining two important, yet completely separate questions:
1. Is it a good plan?
2. Will the plan be effectively executed?

This thread should only be discussing the first question, since the 2nd question is a complete unknown, regardless of the team-building strategy employed.

That's the whole thing, where I agree with Slaw. No strategy is truly "sound", even though a lot intelligent people with well intentions try to make it sound like building a successful team is more like a science instead of an art, or even as Masai himself puts it .... "just plain luck". The draft itself is a particularly bad risk/reward crap-shoot especially if you're tanking for your own pick, as has been well documented.

And even skilled, committed, methodical GM's like Sam Presti can make an epic screw up and trade away a youthful MVP candidate like James Harden for pennies-on-the-dollar. Injuries can happen, players attitudes can change, ownership can meddle or be non-supportive, or cheap, etc.., etc...

The only things that seem to be more controllable than others are: (1) developing a culture of high character, unselfishness, hard work & accountability, (2) having a strong player development infrastructure, (3) having a coach that can develop a system to maximize the value of the players, (4) maintaining financial flexibility & not overpaying relative to performance. Probably a few others, but I'd suspect that for every great talent evaluation move a supposed great GM has made, he's probably made a least one or two duds to offset that greatness. Of course shitty GMs probably make even more bad moves for every good one, so.... I'm at a loss here, really.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

That's the whole thing, where I agree with Slaw. No strategy is truly "sound", even though a lot intelligent people with well intentions try to make it sound like building a successful team is more like a science instead of an art, or even as Masai himself puts it .... "just plain luck". The draft itself is a particularly bad risk/reward crap-shoot especially if you're tanking for your own pick, as has been well documented.

And even skilled, committed, methodical GM's like Sam Presti can make an epic screw up and trade away a youthful MVP candidate like James Harden for pennies-on-the-dollar. Injuries can happen, players attitudes can change, ownership can meddle or be non-supportive, or cheap, etc.., etc...

The only things that seem to be more controllable than others are: (1) developing a culture of high character, unselfishness, hard work & accountability, (2) having a strong player development infrastructure, (3) having a coach that can develop a system to maximize the value of the players, (4) maintaining financial flexibility & not overpaying relative to performance. Probably a few others, but I'd suspect that for every great talent evaluation move a supposed great GM has made, he's probably made a least one or two duds to offset that greatness. Of course shitty GMs probably make even more bad moves for every good one, so.... I'm at a loss here, really.

I completely agree and I wasn't suggesting there wasn't luck involved, or that rebuilding was risk free. Quite the opposite, actually. I just get frustrated when some people point to the more visible risks associated with rebuilding (pointing at extreme examples of mismanagement - ie: Philly's tanking failures), yet seem to infer that there are less/no risks associated with simply keeping the status quo. This thinking pertains not only to roster management, but also to the coaching debate.

There is risk associated with every strategy, and every strategy is dependent on good management to be successful.

[Mess]

Presti was only forced to make that "epic screw up" because OKC drafted and developed 3 All-NBA players and 1 All-Defensive player. He did his job too well that in the end the owner(s), his boss(es), couldn't afford to (or wouldn't) pay for all the talent.

Anyway, that is a hard plan to follow.

[Bandit]

That's the whole thing, where I agree with Slaw. No strategy is truly "sound", even though a lot intelligent people with well intentions try to make it sound like building a successful team is more like a science instead of an art, or even as Masai himself puts it .... "just plain luck". The draft itself is a particularly bad risk/reward crap-shoot especially if you're tanking for your own pick, as has been well documented.

And even skilled, committed, methodical GM's like Sam Presti can make an epic screw up and trade away a youthful MVP candidate like James Harden for pennies-on-the-dollar. Injuries can happen, players attitudes can change, ownership can meddle or be non-supportive, or cheap, etc.., etc...

The only things that seem to be more controllable than others are: (1) developing a culture of high character, unselfishness, hard work & accountability, (2) having a strong player development infrastructure, (3) having a coach that can develop a system to maximize the value of the players, (4) maintaining financial flexibility & not overpaying relative to performance. Probably a few others, but I'd suspect that for every great talent evaluation move a supposed great GM has made, he's probably made a least one or two duds to offset that greatness. Of course shitty GMs probably make even more bad moves for every good one, so.... I'm at a loss here, really.

It's kind of like stock trading, and those who are successful at it. The great traders make countless decisions that end up going nowhere, but they're quick to recognize it and cut their losses at the appropriate point of risk. They make a few great decisions and they maximize the returns off of those and show patience.

There will always be duds, but the fear of having duds in your portfolio will make you a negative trader.

Same thing goes for assets on a team. Being afraid of striking out in the draft/striking out in FA will make you a net negative. If it happens you minimize losses and move on to the next opportunity

[OldSkoolCool]

Here is a good question for the people who are opposed to trading assets right now and dont want to get talent from the top of the deaft:

How do you intend to get this team to a point where they are able to beat LeBron?

[mcHAPPY]

I completely agree and I wasn't suggesting there wasn't luck involved, or that rebuilding was risk free. Quite the opposite, actually. I just get frustrated when some people point to the more visible risks associated with rebuilding (pointing at extreme examples of mismanagement - ie: Philly's tanking failures), yet seem to infer that there are less/no risks associated with simply keeping the status quo. This thinking pertains not only to roster management, but also to the coaching debate.

There is risk associated with every strategy, and every strategy is dependent on good management to be successful.

The bold is so crucial.

Keeping this roster together carries far greater risks in my opinion.

We've seen what keeping a group together longer than it should or building on a shaky foundation can do to the initial rebuild efforts.

We've also seen what happens when you are forced to rebuild. Rebuilding by choice allows you to maximize your current assets....on your own terms - very much like what Philly did with Holiday.

[mcHAPPY]

Here is a good question for the people who are opposed to trading assets right now and dont want to get talent from the top of the deaft:

How do you intend to get this team to a point where they are able to beat LeBron?

Apparently there is nothing wrong with being what the Cavs or Knicks were to the Bulls.

I disagree but that appears to be the general consensus among the group - being a speed bump in the playoffs is admirable.

[McRealistic]

Here is a good question for the people who are opposed to trading assets right now and dont want to get talent from the top of the deaft:

How do you intend to get this team to a point where they are able to beat LeBron?

That is a completely Wrong question to ask because the whole NBA is asking for this and can not find the answer except for SA.

Going through the draft will not make us a team that can beat Lebron but maybe it makes us a team that can compete better than the current guys.

[Bandit]

That is a completely Wrong question to ask because the whole NBA is asking for this and can not find the answer except for SA.

Going through the draft will Probably not make us a team that can beat Lebron but maybe it makes us a team that can compete better than the current guys.

And that "probably" is the beauty of the draft. Because if anyone is going to be able to compete against lebron and the elite in this league they aren't walking in off the streets

[CalgaryRapsFan]

The bold is so crucial.

Keeping this roster together carries far greater risks in my opinion.

We've seen what keeping a group together longer than it should or building on a shaky foundation can do to the initial rebuild efforts.

We've also seen what happens when you are forced to rebuild. Rebuilding by choice allows you to maximize your current assets....on your own terms - very much like what Philly did with Holiday.

Lowry regress, age, become injury-prone...

DeRozan walk after next season for nothing, or get re-upped for max-ish money (we've seen many good value players get hyped to the point that they become bad value players after signing their next deal)...

Becoming a tread-mill team...

Wasting [more] time before rebuilding/retooling anyway (rebuilding is trading both Lowry/DeRozan, while retooling is trading one of them, IMO)...

Becoming a playoff bubble team (or missing the playoffs altogether) on merit, losing all momentum built over the last two years, with less options available for improving than are currently available...

[Mess]

Apparently there is nothing wrong with being what the Cavs or Knicks were to the Bulls.

I disagree but that appears to be the general consensus among the group - being a speed bump in the playoffs is admirable.

Ok there Ricky Bobby.

[OldSkoolCool]

Apparently there is nothing wrong with being what the Cavs or Knicks were to the Bulls.

I disagree but that appears to be the general consensus among the group - being a speed bump in the playoffs is admirable.

I would be fine with multiple ECF losses to the LeBrons as well.

I guess I should rephrase that:

How do you intend to beat the Rose/Wall/George/Embiid/Butler/Giannis/Parker/Oladipo/Wades of the league to face off against LeBron?

Still going to need a heck of a lot more talent.

[DanH]

Presti was only forced to make that "epic screw up" because OKC drafted and developed 3 All-NBA players and 1 All-Defensive player. He did his job too well that in the end the owner(s), his boss(es), couldn't afford to (or wouldn't) pay for all the talent.

Anyway, that is a hard plan to follow.

That's the best part about that argument. Presti, if he had MLSE as his owners, would have paid Harden and would be getting tired when he writes because of all the championship rings on his fingers.

[special1]

Rebuild ... What does it really mean ??

I'll start by acknowledging that I'm not a fan who's advocating for a rebuild. I will admit that the lines between a rebuild and a re-tool can be blurred.

However, I'll give my two cents with regards to the OP's questions.

There are best case scenarios and worst case scenarios. A true plan would need to account for both scenarios ....Can we live with the outcomes? For example a good coach and unexpected wins can seriously hurt a true rebuild. Ben Uzoh cost us a chance to pick between Barnes or Lillard.

What do I think a rebuild would mean for this franchise?

I'm not sure. Without knowing which players will be acquired, it's guess work. Does it even make sense to rebuild without getting the highest possible draft picks in the next few years (yes, I'm talking about tanking). Can we truly rebuild without tanking? That is the question we need to ask ourselves.

Do we really want to restart the process we've tried many times in the past? Did we not tank for JV? Did we not tank for (Barnes/Lillard) I mean Ross? We've experienced situations where ONE extra win can cost a team a good young player. We also see that a missed pick could cost us a player that may end up being more valuable than the two players we were rumoured to be targeting (Andre Drummond). Regardless, if the goal is to get the best young talent in the league, we have to be terrible for the next couple years (assuming you have a good system in place to develop these kids). The chances of a late lottery pick turning out to be better than Kyle or Demar over the next couple years is super duper slim.

If we trade Lowry and Demar, we'd be tanking. Trading one of the two would not achieve a true rebuild as there may be draft pick protections in place. We're basically giving up 2 all-stars... With the team short of talent as is, I just don't see how we would even sniff the playoffs for the next few years. Look, we're not going to get all star calibre players back or else why would the other team trade them?

What time frame are we looking at to get back to where we are now?

I would say minimum 3-5 years (depending on how the players we received via trade/draft develop). I think we'd need to be in the lottery for at least 2-3 years. One good player IS NOT good enough in this league (see Chris Bosh or Kevin Love or Demarcus Cousins, etc)

How bad do we have to get so that our lottery picks translate to success?

I think it depends on the timeline/goal we set. The earlier the timeline, the better the pick would need to be. We would need to be awful....top 7, hopefully better.

I advocate re-tooling as mentioned by other posters.

Trade Lowry for a young PF (Maybe Randle from LA, Terrance Jones from Houston or even Kenneth Faried from Denver)....get a pass first - good defensive point guard (Corey Joseph or maybe Patrick Beverly with the Terrance Jones trade)....Bring in a competent SF via free agency (Middleton or Carroll) and re-evaluate.

We may take a step back or we might be even better. Building upon the regular season "success" over the last couple years will help to change the perception that Toronto may not be a loser city. Losers need to overpay free-agents (Hedo Turkglu type of players). We don't want to go back there because it won't matter how much cap space we have, NO ONE (who's actually good) will want to come here if we're perennial losers. A couple good pieces and/or a good coach could be the difference between first round out and regular season/playoff success.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MACK11]

I'll start by acknowledging that I'm not a fan who's advocating for a rebuild. I will admit that the lines between a rebuild and a re-tool can be blurred.

However, I'll give my two cents with regards to the OP's questions.

There are best case scenarios and worst case scenarios. A true plan would need to account for both scenarios ....Can we live with the outcomes? For example a good coach and unexpected wins can seriously hurt a true rebuild. Ben Uzoh cost us a chance to pick between Barnes or Lillard.

What do I think a rebuild would mean for this franchise?

I'm not sure. Without knowing which players will be acquired, it's guess work. Does it even make sense to rebuild without getting the highest possible draft picks in the next few years (yes, I'm talking about tanking). Can we truly rebuild without tanking? That is the question we need to ask ourselves.

Do we really want to restart the process we've tried many times in the past? Did we not tank for JV? Did we not tank for (Barnes/Lillard) I mean Ross? We've experienced situations where ONE extra win can cost a team a good young player. We also see that a missed pick could cost us a player that may end up being more valuable than the two players we were rumoured to be targeting (Andre Drummond). Therefore, if the goal is to get the best young talent in the league, we have to be terrible for the next couple years (assuming you have a good system in place to develop these kids). The chances of a late lottery pick turning out to be better than Kyle or Demar over the next couple years is super duper slim.

If we trade Lowry and Demar, we'd be tanking. Trading one of the two would not achieve a true rebuild as there may be draft pick protections in place. We're basically giving up 2 all-stars... With the team short of talent as is, I just don't see how we would even sniff the playoffs for the next few years. Look, we're not going to get all star calibre players back or else why would the other team trade them?

What time frame are we looking at to get back to where we are now?

I would say minimum 3-5 years (depending on how the players we received via trade/draft develop). I think we'd need to be in the lottery for at least 2-3 years. One good player IS NOT good enough in this league (see Chris Bosh or Kevin Love or Demarcus Cousins, etc)

How bad do we have to get so that our lottery picks translate to success? I think it depends on the timeline/goal we set. The earlier the timeline, the better the pick would need to be. We would need to be awful....top 7, hopefully better.

I advocate re-tooling as mentioned by other posters.

Trade Lowry for a young PF (Maybe Randle from LA, Terrance Jones from Houston or even Kenneth Faried from Denver)....get a pass first - good defensive point guard (Corey Joseph or maybe Patrick Beverly with the Terrance Jones trade)....Bring in a competent SF via free agency (Middleton or Carroll) and re-evaluate.

We may take a step back or we might be even better. Building upon the regular season "success" over the last couple years will help to change the perception that Toronto may not be a loser city. Losers need to overpay free-agents (Hedo Turkglu type of players). We don't want to go back there because it won't matter how much cap space we have, NO ONE (who's actually good) will want to come here if we're perennial losers. A couple good pieces and/or a good coach could be the difference between first round out and regular season/playoff success.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If your trading Lowry

Who starts at PG?

Because if we dont replace Lowry with a PG whos as good as him or better than him, this team led by DD and whoever is going to be a perennial 1st round exit and NO free agent is coming here

Lets Go with the hypothetical lineup of

PG: Beverly, Vasquez
SG: DD, Ross
SF: Middelton, JJ, Bruno
PF: Jones, Patterson
C: JV, Bebe

+ Who you draft at 20


How is that Roster building on the "success" of the previous seasons?

That team still doesnt have a clear #1 or a player that can grow into it

So once again we'd be lucky to win a 1st round with HC just like the team with Lowry on it


Thats not going to attrack any FA's, That's a treadmill team and everyone knows those type of teams go nowhere and eventually need to be blown up. Theres no point in delaying the inevitable