Team Needs

[geebee]

What the team needs should be the priority.
If they don't have a starting 3, I don't have any issue if they
try to patch things with Turk, until they get one.

Agreed.
BC can't run a team by public opinion poll.

[CB4]

Johnson will resign. If nothing else happens to the roster except Davis comes in, Bosh leaves and Johnson starts the team will better than last season, make no mistake about it.

I really don't think that will be the case. I think we will really have a lack of depth and have trouble scoring inside without Bosh. As good as we were offensively, when we got jump shot happy we really struggled. Defensively, you have to wonder what Davis can do in the NBA in only his rookie year. I think we'll be closer to the Nets than to a five-hundred team. I hope I'm wrong though.

[Quixotic]

Nope. Tim did, and you vigorously defended his approach, so don't tell me now that you don't recognize it.

I recognized it was an obvious rebuilding effort, and his personal choices wasn't really the point, was it now? I simply stated a rebuild is not intentional tanking. What's more, Tim might not like Bargnani but I actually do, so your attempt to put words in my mouth doesn't really work.

Or, if you're convinced that we can never be competitive as is, we can simply cut all the other players and forfeit the entire season. Then you'd have a clean slate for 2011-12.

Not sure why feeling the team as is can't compete must lead to a total wipedown, but if you think not being a serious contender means throwing the baby out with the bathwater, that's on you. More trying to put words into my mouth.

Not at all. I'm sure they'd be very competitive in 3-on-3 tournaments. However, it's not an NBA team.

You really like twisting stuff around just to be argumentative, don't you. If you didn't notice, I said "BC will have to determine what other pieces still fit around those 3," as in finding 9+ more players either out of the current roster or elsewhere to perfectly complement those kids. Not that we have their fortune in starting with Durant, but Durant + Green wasn't an NBA team in 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 either, but they kept Collison, picked up Westbrook in the lottery, traded for Sefolosha, and where are they now? Yes, I only named 5 players, but you're smart enough to know they had 7 other players around them, so no more inane arguments about pick-up ball, please.

And just in case you haven't noticed, even with Bosh + Turkoglu + Calderon + Jack, we are already a lottery team.

[Quixotic]

I really don't think that will be the case. I think we will really have a lack of depth and have trouble scoring inside without Bosh. As good as we were offensively, when we got jump shot happy we really struggled. Defensively, you have to wonder what Davis can do in the NBA in only his rookie year. I think we'll be closer to the Nets than to a five-hundred team. I hope I'm wrong though.

Bosh was a big reason for our success, little as it might be. During his first absent stretch, we didn't notice his absence as much due to the caliber of teams we played. Over an entire season, however, you are totally right about us being closer to the Nets than a .500 team. Fact is, once Bosh is gone, our next best offensive talent will receive more defensive looks, and so on and so forth down the line -- everyone will have a harder time scoring. We can only hope that the young'uns take this upcoming year to learn to play the right way: good hard-nosed defense, commitment to boxing out, rebounding and diving for loose balls, and continued willingness to learn. At least then, even if we bomb, we'll have the excitement of watching our prospects grow. With the right approach, we could be the next OKC, which is far better than constantly being in the middle and unable to move up due to lack of cap space and high draft picks.

[geebee]

I recognized it was an obvious rebuilding effort, and his personal choices wasn't really the point, was it now? I simply stated a rebuild is not intentional tanking.?

And I said that effectively cutting all but your weakest starters IS tanking, so it really does come down to personal choices. If Tim's plan is to not even to TRY to field a competitive team, then frankly that's called tanking.

You really like twisting stuff around just to be argumentative, don't you.

Funny. I don't see it that way. I was responding to Tim's comment and then you jumped in and started talking down to me. I don't consider it "being argumentative" simply because I disagree with your criticism.

If you didn't notice, I said "BC will have to determine what other pieces still fit around those 3," as in finding 9+ more players either out of the current roster or elsewhere to perfectly complement those kids. Not that we have their fortune in starting with Durant, but Durant + Green wasn't an NBA team in 2007-2008 or 2008-2009 either

No, we don't. We're not OKC, so I don't understand why you keep comparing us to them. All I've tried to say is let's not throw away decent pieces just for the sake of doing so. We've got three so-so PGs. At least one of them can/should go. We've got only one true SF. Unless we can get a guaranteed solid replacement, there's no logical reason to simply throw him away. Bargs is inconsistent, but after Bosh he's also our best offensive big. I see no reason to simply abandon THAT project either.

I've got no problem with rebuilding, but as soon as Bosh goes this is a different team and I'd like to see what kind of team it could be before I agree that we should start shuffling the deck.

[Quixotic]

And I said that effectively cutting all but your weakest starters IS tanking, so it really does come down to personal choices. If Tim's plan is to not even to TRY to field a competitive team, then frankly that's called tanking.

Let's just agree to disagree here.

Funny. I don't see it that way. I was responding to Tim's comment and then you jumped in and started talking down to me. I don't consider it "being argumentative" simply because I disagree with your criticism.

Talking down to you? I don't know what to say here, except don't be so sensitive? I don't know where I was talking down to you, unless asking you if you followed basketball back during Isaiah's days is considered condescending. A legit question, no? We'll have to agree to disagree here as well.

No, we don't. We're not OKC, so I don't understand why you keep comparing us to them.

Because it's easier to use examples, which I even qualified as being flawed, than to wave my arms around in the air in front of a computer screen trying to illustrate a tangible example without using examples.

All I've tried to say is let's not throw away decent pieces just for the sake of doing so. [...] I've got no problem with rebuilding, but as soon as Bosh goes this is a different team and I'd like to see what kind of team it could be before I agree that we should start shuffling the deck.

If you had said this sooner, you would have had no disagreement from me. Plus, I do not intend to throw anything away. Turkoglu is the only piece we might have to give away for less value (he doesn't want to come back and was sensitive to the booing + TO fans hate quitters and will boo him incessantly = bad situation), but if it puts us in a better financial situation, that's not necessarily less value. If we move anyone else, it should be in a move that fits the team better, and that's what I thought I was stressing.

[Tim W.]

With all due respect, trading away Bargs but keeping Calderon doesn't sound much like "building for the future". If you're developing younger talent, why not keep Bargs and trade Calderon/Bosh for a PG with upside potential?

No. Tim's plan is to give away the young talent we have... keep the players with glaring downsides in their game, and wait for the lottery pick. You can try to spin it, but that's still tanking.

Reread my post. The only player with a glaring downside I suggested keeping was Calderon. I would trade both Bargnani and Turkoglu. I'd keep Johnson, Davis, Alabi, Weems, DeRozan, Belinelli and Calderon. The only player over the age of 23 is Calderon. And the only player with a glaring weakness is Calderon, and he is the only player on the roster currently that makes his teammates better, which is one reason I keep him.

The reason I trade Bargnani is because I think his value, along with his development, has peaked. I think he'll struggle as the Raptors main option next season and he'll be exposed for being basically what he is: a good jump shooting big man that can't create his own shot, rebound or play good defense. RIght now, teams still see the potential. I think next year that will fade and teams won't want to take as much of a chance on him.

Turkoglu I would trade because I think he's still got value, and because I don't think you want lazy players like Turkoglu around developing young players. I think you need to be very careful with the type of player you bring on a team like the Raptors. If he's not a hard worker, I wouldn't take him.

Jack I would trade simply because I think he's got a lot of value. He's a good player with a very good contract. I'd love to keep him, and if there's nothing that makes the team better, I'd keep him, but I think he's more valuable as a trade asset right now than as a player.

As for tanking, I disagree. I'm not focusing on winning right now, but on developing and collecting young players. In the NBA, however, that generally means you don't win. Getting a high pick next year is not the goal, but the inevitable result of the plan.