Everything 2017 Off-Season

[S.R.]

Geez, guys, you do know that for all of Lowry's shooting struggles the past couple seasons in the playoffs, he's still been basically the only reason we've won any games at all (besides JV in the early portion of last year's playoffs)?

The Raptors' system is a death knell for guards in the playoffs because teams scheme for it and it's really freaking easy to scheme for. It's no coincidence that Lowry AND DeMar have struggled in the playoffs. We didn't just luck into two non-playoff performers...

If you want to build a team that scores a bunch of points and loses more often than not, trading Lowry for Kyrie is the right move.

I'd counter with it's some of both - Lowry and DeRozan are also easy guards to scheme for. A guy like George Hill can disrupt Lowry straight up, one on one, and guys like Otto Porter (!) have been able to disrupt DeRozan. Kyrie isn't stopped by those kinds of players, he has the athleticism and offensive talent you need in the playoffs, that next level of performance that teams basically can't stop no matter what they throw at you. Contenders have those players and this Raptors roster has always lacked that.

It's easy to hate on Irving because of the ESPN hype, but damn - he makes legit jaw dropping scoring plays regularly. That + 25 ppg and college hype will get you plenty of ESPN headlines, it is what it is.

But ultimately Irving is Carmelo Anthony in a point guard's body, I wouldn't be very interested. It is better to have Lowry here for the next 2-3 years.

[3inthekeon]

Where Lowry ranks w/ IT, Wall & Kyrie in '16-17

PPG: 4th
FG%: 2nd
3PM: 1st
3P%: 1st
RPG: 1st
APG: 2nd
SPG: 2nd
+/-:1st
NetRtg: 1st
TS%: 2nd

— TORaptors (@T0Raptors) July 23, 2017

Here are the top 25 in RPM if you use a 60%/40% split for ORPM/DRPM. pic.twitter.com/7nP3tvRUeR

— Krishna Narsu (@knarsu3) July 23, 2017

I found the Krishna Narsu tweet very interesting, because it's the first time I remember seeing anyone weight offensive and defensive stats as anything other than 50/50. Intuitively it's seemed to me offence should be given a bit more priority. Has anyone ever seen anything on the reasoning behind his unbalanced weighting for offence and defence?

[DanH]

I found the Krishna Narsu tweet very interesting, because it's the first time I remember seeing anyone weight offensive and defensive stats as anything other than 50/50. Intuitively it's seemed to me offence should be given a bit more priority. Has anyone ever seen anything on the reasoning behind his unbalanced weighting for offence and defence?

Defensive stats are just less reliable. So weighting them less makes sense on that logic alone.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

The Cavaliers are 4-23 over the last three seasons when LeBron James doesn't play.

I'm aware of that which is why I said there's a noticeable dropoff.

I don't care too much about the wins and losses. The Raptors W-L record without Lowry is pretty good, doesn't tell the whole story though. My issue is the on-off court numbers. The Cavs point differential is seriously laughable when LeBron is not on the floor, even if Kyrie is on. And the Cavs were terrible with Kyrie as the main man prior to LeBron joining, although that evaluation is a little unfair because he had just got into the league at that point.

Geez, guys, you do know that for all of Lowry's shooting struggles the past couple seasons in the playoffs, he's still been basically the only reason we've won any games at all (besides JV in the early portion of last year's playoffs)?

The Raptors' system is a death knell for guards in the playoffs because teams scheme for it and it's really freaking easy to scheme for. It's no coincidence that Lowry AND DeMar have struggled in the playoffs. We didn't just luck into two non-playoff performers. Let Lowry play off of LeBron and he'd look way better than Kyrie even in the playoffs. And in the meantime, while Lowry has struggled with all the traps and stuff that teams can throw his way with abandon because of the system the Raps use, he's still managed to carry this team on his back. Whenever he sits, the Raptors turn into a flaming pile of garbage instantly. Kyrie has never even dreamed of having that sort of impact on a team.

If you want to build a team that scores a bunch of points and loses more often than not, trading Lowry for Kyrie is the right move.

I really don't understand the youth argument for Kyrie - he'll be an UFA before Kyle is, and would bolt ASAP since his whole point is to get to run his own offence and that's tough to envision with DeRozan eating up a third of all possessions. It would be all about the next two years - and Kyrie would have to post an incredible improvement to actually help the team win more than Lowry does right now.

I don't really completely agree with this. While I do agree with the impact stuff for Kyrie/Kyle, I do not agree with the idea that Kyle's playoff dropoffs are just because of the Raptors system. I do think he's a choker to a certain extent and does not handle pressure well. And I think DeRozan's Kobe mentality without Kobe's ability in the playoffs is highly detrimental. (Even Kobe was prone to some very inefficient playoff games due to forcing his shot, DeMar definitely should not be doing that but he does it anyway).

Your counter-point to the youth argument is pretty lame tbh. Like if we're just doing it under the assumption that he'd bolt then yeah obviously you don't make that trade. But the idea would be to compare the overall longevity of the two players. Kyle is likely done as a top level player in the next 2-3 years while Kyrie has about 8-9 left.

If Cleveland actually offered Lowry for Kyrie I'd do that in two seconds. He's from not far from Toronto anyway (New Jersey) and if his main goal is really to be the main man somewhere, then he could do that in Toronto. I recognize though that would mean this team gets worse. We'd likely still be a playoff team though and since we have a 0% chance of beating Cleveland anyway since the organization isn't willing to take big risks and go into the task, might as well get a younger partner for DeMar even if Kyle is the much higher impact player.

Really not debatable. And only on a Raptors fansite could you find people that would reject a Kyrie for Lowry offer. Even the stats guys who understand how much more of an impact player Kyrie is would not turn that down simply because you are talking about 2 all-star level point guards, but one is 6 years younger than the other. And while Kyle is better, he doesn't raise the ceiling to championship level. We're likely still a 1st/2nd round exit team either way.

[DanH]

I'm confident that if the Cavs had a chance to trade Irving for Lowry, they would do it, and Masai would not.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

I'd counter with it's some of both - Lowry and DeRozan are also easy guards to scheme for. A guy like George Hill can disrupt Lowry straight up, one on one, and guys like Otto Porter (!) have been able to disrupt DeRozan. Kyrie isn't stopped by those kinds of players, he has the athleticism and offensive talent you need in the playoffs, that next level of performance that teams basically can't stop no matter what they throw at you. Contenders have those players and this Raptors roster has always lacked that.

It's easy to hate on Irving because of the ESPN hype, but damn - he makes legit jaw dropping scoring plays regularly. That + 25 ppg and college hype will get you plenty of ESPN headlines, it is what it is.

But ultimately Irving is Carmelo Anthony in a point guard's body, I wouldn't be very interested. It is better to have Lowry here for the next 2-3 years.

This is the thing about Kyrie. I think he is more capable of bullshitting his way to baskets in the playoffs than Kyle is. So even in a non-creative offensive system like ours he'd be able to score more easily than Kyle does against elite defenders.

Like I said I'd take that trade in 2 seconds. I think Kyle is the better player but he's way older and doesn't really raise our playoff ceiling higher anyway. Either way we'd struggle against lesser opponents like we always do, and likely lose to Boston/Washington and get absolutely raped by Cleveland.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

I'm confident that if the Cavs had a chance to trade Irving for Lowry, they would do it, and Masai would not.

Masai would be an idiot then. 31 year old Lowry for 25 year old Irving?

It would also be a pretty dumb trade for Cleveland btw. Doesn't increase their chances of beating the Warriors by much if at all, and it'd be better for them to get young pieces to start a rebuild with since LeBron is likely out of there in 2018.

If this team was on the cusp of title contention with Lowry this season I wouldn't do it, but we're not. We have a 0% chance of winning the NBA title.

[Scraptor]

Whenever he sits, the Raptors turn into a flaming pile of garbage instantly. Kyrie has never even dreamed of having that sort of impact on a team.

Are you sure we're talking about the same player?

After a somewhat ordinary start Tuesday, Irving took matters into his own hands when James hit the bench at the 6:46 mark of the second quarter with four fouls. At the time, the Cavaliers trailed 43-33, and James would sit for the rest of the quarter. Irving scored 12 of his team's final 14 points in the half to keep the margin at 10 heading into halftime.

While the crowd seemingly got louder after every Irving bucket, one superstar spectator wasn't surprised.

"Same thing I've been saying since I got here," James said. "He's a special kid. He's a special talent. As the stakes get higher and higher, his game gets higher and higher."

Even though James returned to the floor in the third quarter, Irving remained the hot hand. He shot 9-for-10 from the field for 21 points, nearly single-handedly outscoring Boston (23 points) by himself. That outburst helped Cleveland jump out to an 87-80 lead heading into the fourth, erasing any lingering stench from the 16-point deficit the Cavs faced earlier in the game.

If you want to build a team that scores a bunch of points and loses more often than not, trading Lowry for Kyrie is the right move.

I feel like Irving has become so overrated he's now underrated. He's a scorer, sure, but that's largely by design.

It’s not an easy existence for Irving, being pushed by James to expand his game while simultaneously being ridden by Lue to do what he does best out of necessity for the Cavs’ offense.

“We don’t have a lot of guys who can create off the dribble, so if he’s not doing it, then we’re screwed,” Lue told ESPN. “So we need him to be aggressive, we need him to score the basketball.

"At times, [Irving’s low assist totals] could be my fault, because we need him to be aggressive scoring the basketball because he can go get it one-on-one," Lue added.

I really don't understand the youth argument for Kyrie - he'll be an UFA before Kyle is, and would bolt ASAP since his whole point is to get to run his own offence and that's tough to envision with DeRozan eating up a third of all possessions. It would be all about the next two years - and Kyrie would have to post an incredible improvement to actually help the team win more than Lowry does right now.

His list of preferred teams included San Antonio and Minnesota. I think he just wants out of LeBron's shadow. If Masai can't sell him on Toronto over two years then I would question the point of even building from the middle as we've been doing, because it means we can't acquire stars via trade and we can't acquire them via free agency.

He may not be the complete player that Lowry is, but I think he has a higher ceiling, and is a legitimate first option on a championship level team.

The point of doing a Lowry-Irving swap is that it moves our ceiling higher and better positions us for the long-term. But like all other recently-available stars it's likely that we just watch the pitch sail by.

[Shaolin Fantastic]

Are you sure we're talking about the same player?





I feel like Irving has become so overrated he's now underrated. He's a scorer, sure, but that's largely by design.






His list of preferred teams included San Antonio and Minnesota. I think he just wants out of LeBron's shadow. If Masai can't sell him on Toronto over two years then I would question the point of even building from the middle as we've been doing, because it means we can't acquire stars via trade and we can't acquire them via free agency.

He may not be the complete player that Lowry is, but I think he has a higher ceiling, and is a legitimate first option on a championship level team.

The point of doing a Lowry-Irving swap is that it moves our ceiling higher and better positions us for the long-term. But like all other recently-available stars it's likely that we just watch the pitch sail by.

I agree somewhat but the bold isn't true imo. I don't think Kyrie can be the #1 option on a title winning team, unless there are 3 or 4 other stars as options #2-4. But I agree with the initial concept of it being absolutely insane to reject a Kyrie for Lowry offer (which Cleveland would never make, and we cannot do until December anyway).

I don't think Kyrie is remotely capable of what you're suggesting. My reason for making the trade would be the basic fact that it gives us an all-star backcourt with way more time on it with a 25 year old Kyrie and 27 year old DeMar. I also think having those two would make us more attractive towards other players.

edit: I also really liked your point about building from the middle. If we can't retain a player like Kyrie then wtf is the point of what we're doing?

[DanH]

Are you sure we're talking about the same player?

Yes. The Cavs had a +9 net rating with LBJ+Irving on the court this year, +5 with just LBJ, and -8 with just Irving.

In the playoffs, those went to +12 with both, +18 with just LBJ, and -18 with just Kyrie.

His list of preferred teams included San Antonio and Minnesota. I think he just wants out of LeBron's shadow. If Masai can't sell him on Toronto over two years then I would question the point of even building from the middle as we've been doing, because it means we can't acquire stars via trade and we can't acquire them via free agency.

He may not be the complete player that Lowry is, but I think he has a higher ceiling, and is a legitimate first option on a championship level team.

The point of doing a Lowry-Irving swap is that it moves our ceiling higher and better positions us for the long-term. But like all other recently-available stars it's likely that we just watch the pitch sail by.

How does trading for a player who can opt out in two years and bolt a year before Lowry does position us better long term? Especially a player who has proven to be a scorer who can't actually help his team win at all, and will be paid a maximum salary for providing essentially what DeRozan does - while DeRozan's salary now is only really worth it because of his pairing with Lowry.

Trading for Irving lowers the ceiling, it doesn't raise it. It's one of those moves that looks good on paper and is easy to sell, and ultimately hurts the team.

[KeonClark]

I laughed out loud. Kids today will never know about Paul Wall. "Ridin somethin candy painted, crawlin like a caterpillar"

[3inthekeon]

Defensive stats are just less reliable. So weighting them less makes sense on that logic alone.

Even if the stats were equally reliable, a useless defender can be somewhat hidden on D, especially in the regular season where teams don't have a lot of time to gameplan attacking that defender whereas a useless offensive player creates the 4 on 5 offense each trip down the court.

[DanH]

Even if the stats were equally reliable, a useless defender can be somewhat hidden on D, especially in the regular season where teams don't have a lot of time to gameplan attacking that defender whereas a useless offensive player creates the 4 on 5 offense each trip down the court.

Well, sure, but that shows up in the stats, right? If a useless defensive player has less impact on the defence, then the player's defensive impact numbers won't be as bad. The stats measure results, not value. So if the stats are saying a defender is bad, and you think that bad defenders are easily hidden, then in all likelihood the player is actually a historically terrible defender who is being hidden and only shows up as a bad one.

[3inthekeon]

Well, sure, but that shows up in the stats, right? If a useless defensive player has less impact on the defence, then the player's defensive impact numbers won't be as bad. The stats measure results, not value. So if the stats are saying a defender is bad, and you think that bad defenders are easily hidden, then in all likelihood the player is actually a historically terrible defender who is being hidden and only shows up as a bad one.

OK, I see your point, other than "somewhat hidden" and "easily hidden" don't quite mean the same thing.

[DanH]

OK, I see your point, other than "somewhat hidden" and "easily hidden" don't quite mean the same thing.

Sure, my bad on the wording, but regardless of the degree of the hiding, it's the results (with the hiding in place) that show up in the stats.