Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Bargnani

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

  • RapthoseLeafs wrote: View Post
    Of the top 4 teams in each conference (last season), here are the numbers (along with relevant Raptor numbers:
    • Team scoring average - 100 points
    • Front Court points - 58.5
    • >
    • Toronto scoring average - 99.1 points
    • Toronto - Front Court - 55.0


    If the main trio of Bigs for Toronto is Jonas, Ed and Amir - as some suggest - here is how it would have to play out (on a game by game basis):

    To make my point, I've made some assumptions:
    • Jonas + Ed + Amir = 86 minutes
    • Jonas & Ed - 60 minutes
    • Amir - 26 minutes
    • Amir's Scoring - 10 ppg (based on last year's number playing 25.7 min/game - 9.6 ppg)
    • Balance of Bigs court time - 10.4 minutes (counting 0.4 min/game of overtime)
    • Balance of Bigs scoring - 3.5 points (based on League type numbers)
    • SF Scoring - 17 points (Toronto was 16.5 last year - Lakers were 14.4)


    In this scenario, the Starting Bigs would need to put up 28 points per game, and provide the Defense that makes them the reason for being there (as opposed to having Andrea).
    • 11.5 ppg for Jonas would put him amongst the top 15 Centres (for scoring). Marc Gasol was 31.9 min & 11.7 ppg.
    • 16.5 ppg for Davis would put him amongst the top 15 Power Forwards (for scoring).

    To me, it doesn't sound reasonable - in fact, it's more like Maple Leaf fans jumping on a 8-3-1 record, and arranging the parade already.

    It's possible Ed Davis becomes a 20 ppg guy, but that implies he'll be a top 5 PF in the league. That's putting some lofty hopes on players that don't deserve to be put in such a position. This also is predicated on the Starting SF putting up 14 points per game (or thereabouts).

    Once these players start putting up bigger numbers, Opponent defenses will focus in better. That will impact efficiency, as well as energy left for the defensive end.
    .
    As such, I believe you need a Bargnani in the mix. His role may reflect what we hope is as a Contender in 4 - 5 years, where a new contract reflects the 6 man scenario. Or he may get it (in time), and become that PF we'd hope he could be.

    Either way, we're not about to be a Contender in the next 2 or 3 years. Possibly a good team, but not one that will have it all. That takes experience and Leadership - and this team is too young at this time. If you look at a championship team like Dallas, most of their key players were over 30 (with Chandler 28 - closer to 29)
    .
    What is more likely? That Valanciunas, Davis and Amir can average this 58 ppg that they apparently need to do or that Bargnani will, for the first time in his ENTIRE CAREER, show a big improvement on defense and rebounding enough that he won't be a liability?

    And in your research, did you discover how many of those teams had starting big men who were below average rebounders and defenders?
    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
    Follow me on Twitter.

    Comment


    • Hugmenot wrote: View Post
      So it's OK for you to decide what I think of a player but get really offended when I return the favor?
      I really have absolutely no idea WHAT you are talking about.

      Hugmenot wrote: View Post
      As you did on Kanter. And Bargnano. And Amir Johnson. You're the expert on any subject you decide you're an expert.

      I thank you for it because it is people who voiced their expertise loud and clear which allowed me to make a great living fixing problems companies encountered while following their highly respected opinions.
      Do you mean Bargnani? Because I've never thought much of Bargnani. As for my "expertise", I've never claimed to be one. It seems to me that you're trying to take this discussion onto a personal level. No thanks.

      Hugmenot wrote: View Post
      Neither were true centers as they spent considerable time playing power forward, Pau Gasol more so than Jermaine O'Neal.
      Jermaine O'Neal was drafted as a center, but because of his lack of bulk, questioned whether he would be able to play that position right away. Gasol played center for the Grizzlies.

      It seems to me that you're reaching a little, here. Both of them were/are 7 footers who have played mostly center. What difference does it make whether they were "considered" a true center? And is there really that much difference? Is Duncan a center or PF?
      Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
      Follow me on Twitter.

      Comment


      • Lark Benson wrote: View Post
        I haven't posted in a long while, but it's funny how nothing has changed. You bring up Amir Johnson, eventually the conversation swings toward Bargnani. It can't be helped since they're both part of the bigs rotation, it's just kind of funny to see people getting worked up about the same thing over and over. Anyway, to me this isn't the time to be discussing this topic at all. In my opinion there's too much value and insight to be gained from Davis, Bargs and Johnson each playing at least one more season for the Raps before any trades are made.

        While I have very little doubt personally that Bargnani will never develop into the kind of frontcourt player that I'd personally want to see on the Raptors, that isn't to say his value won't increase with a season under Dwayne Casey. First off, remember that value in the NBA is by and large determined by scoring production. That view may be changing as advanced statistical analysis continues ascending to prominence but it certainly still holds true in terms of contracts and we can assume to some degree it's still true with NBA GMs. From that standpoint, Bargs' value is likely to increase since scoring is his greatest asset and it should increase (at least in efficiency if not volume) with another season of refinement. Secondly, even if Bargs himself doesn't show much improvement in terms of team defence and rebounding, his perceived value may benefit from the Raptors becoming a better team defensively overall. Obviously this is by no means a given, but it bears mentioning. Will any such gains outweigh the extra million in salary (or two if this season ends up lost)? We can't know, but I think that unless you can get a solid top-10 draft pick or similar prospect for him, it's worth waiting to see.

        More importantly, because none of these three bigs project to being (or are) the kind of two way player that deserves alpha or beta status on a contending team, which to keep may end up coming down to either fit alongside said alpha and beta, or simply which can be afforded alongside the contracts of alpha and beta. In other words, which player the Raps end up keeping might come down not to which is the better player, but which player they can AFFORD to keep alongside whoever ends up comprising their core. Purely as a hypothetical, let's say that this year the Raps draft Harrison Barnes, who ends up being an alpha at the 3, and DeRozan and Valanciunas end up being a solid beta and gamma. If Ed Davis turns into a kind of Joakim Noah type at the 4/5 and the Raps are already paying DeRozan big money due to an extension with contracts for Val and Barnes looming, the Raps may have to opt to trade both Davis and Bargnani, then re-sign Johnson to a cheaper deal.

        So as fun as it is to argue about which pieces will form a better fit on the court, the reality is that in a post-lockout NBA finances are very likely to dictate who among the Bargs / Davis / Johnson trio stays, and their respective values need to be further evaluated with regard to fit alongside at least one genuine franchise player. The good news is that the Raps have all three essentially locked up until 2015, so there will a lot more time to continue this debate until that franchise player arrives.
        The biggest problem I have with your argument is saying that Bargnani's trade value will continue to go up. To me, his value peaked in the summer of 2010, and will continue to go down. Players trade value are either based on potential or performance (or a mixture of the two). Bargnani's biggest trade value has always been his potential. His perceived ceiling is what has always been attractive about him. The reason is because his performance simply has never been very good, especially when now connected with his salary.

        In the summer of 2010, there was still a question of what his potential could be because you could use the excuse (as many did) that he simply has never been given the chance. Last year he did and although he scored well, his overall season was a disappointment. And after 5 years in the league, the excuses are pretty much running out. I don't think anyone believes he's going to be an All-Star, anymore, so you're not going to give up nearly as much for him when you might believe that. And at 26, he's running out of time to look at his potential.

        And although he's a good scorer, his obvious liabilities now make his performance value questionable with the salary he's making. I mean, do you want to be paying a big man $12 million (especially with the new CBA) when all he can do is score? Especially one that is not an elite scorer and needs to be protected defensively? Basically a bigger version of Jamaal Crawford?

        Unfortunately, the longer you keep Bargnani the more his value will go down and the more difficult it will be to trade him. All those that want to keep him to "see if Casey can make him improve" don't seem to realize how big (and how bad) a gamble that is.
        Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
        Follow me on Twitter.

        Comment


        • Tim W. wrote: View Post
          Unfortunately, the longer you keep Bargnani the more his value will go down and the more difficult it will be to trade him. All those that want to keep him to "see if Casey can make him improve" don't seem to realize how big (and how bad) a gamble that is.
          Not true. Lots of us just don't agree with your opionion and/or your assesment of Bargnani. He's obviously a lightning rod on RR, so no point continually rehashing the arguments for and against.

          Comment


          • Lark Benson wrote: View Post
            I think this is a case of me just not stating my case adequately. When I said at least another year, I was thinking this year plus potentially into next, which more than likely means a trade deadline deal rather than an offseason deal, since that's when you're most likely to get a prospect or a pick. But I didn't really express that, so I see where you're coming from. I still tend to assume the players will come to their senses, though with all this new decertification talk that seems less and less likely.

            From the Tim W. reply:


            I said that it COULD go up, and that you'd have to weight that against the increased salary. It's a gamble, but I think you've got your Raps fan hat on here and not your NBA GM hat. NBA GMs continue to see potential in players that NBA fans loooong ago gave up on, and I doubt that'll change any time soon. Fact is, he still hasn't ever been paired with a quality defensive big man and I refuse to believe there aren't NBA GMs intrigued with the possibility of giving it a shot, especially if they need to shake things up to keep their jobs (ie about 1/3 active GMs in the league). These people are risk takers on a level that you and I are not. Don't get me wrong, were I a GM I'd never roll the dice on the guy, but you can't tell me there aren't GMs in the league who wouldn't, especially if his scoring numbers increase or his efficiency tightens up and the Raps perform well defensively around him. There are simply too many bad GMs out there for me to agree with you, sadly.

            As for the salary issue, one of two things make it more palatable than you think: either percentage rollbacks across all salaries, or max contracts capped significantly lower (or both) mean that his contract could look more like something appropriate for a 3rd option on offence. Remember, NBA salaries are tied principally to scoring production, logical or not.
            hahaha believe me Lark, ive tried.
            Youre barking up on the wrong tree here, trust me.
            Read the Everything Bargnani thread, if you want to get to know me and Tim W., hehehe.

            Gentlemen, this is an Amir Johnson Thread!!! haha

            Comment


            • Lark Benson wrote: View Post
              I said that it COULD go up, and that you'd have to weight that against the increased salary. It's a gamble, but I think you've got your Raps fan hat on here and not your NBA GM hat. NBA GMs continue to see potential in players that NBA fans loooong ago gave up on, and I doubt that'll change any time soon. Fact is, he still hasn't ever been paired with a quality defensive big man and I refuse to believe there aren't NBA GMs intrigued with the possibility of giving it a shot, especially if they need to shake things up to keep their jobs (ie about 1/3 active GMs in the league). These people are risk takers on a level that you and I are not. Don't get me wrong, were I a GM I'd never roll the dice on the guy, but you can't tell me there aren't GMs in the league who wouldn't, especially if his scoring numbers increase or his efficiency tightens up and the Raps perform well defensively around him. There are simply too many bad GMs out there for me to agree with you, sadly.

              As for the salary issue, one of two things make it more palatable than you think: either percentage rollbacks across all salaries, or max contracts capped significantly lower (or both) mean that his contract could look more like something appropriate for a 3rd option on offence. Remember, NBA salaries are tied principally to scoring production, logical or not.
              I've got my realist hat on. The fact is that the most likely scenario is that Bargnani's trade value will continue to decline. Could some GMs still continue to grasp at straws? Sure, but fewer and fewer the older Bargnani gets. He just turned 26 and has been in the league 5 years. Next year he'll be 27 and it will be 6 years. It becomes harder and harder to believe he's going to be anything except what he is, even for gamblers. That means fewer and fewer takers and a decline of his trade value. I mean, it's certainly not going to go UP. And there's logic dictates it's not going to stay the same as he gets older.

              NBA salaries are tied to how valuable a player is perceived or is perceived will be. A big man doesn't need to score to get a 7 figure salary. Ask Joakim Noah. And ask teams how much they value Corey Maggette with his salary? He's one of the better scorer in the NBA, but his salary (which is less than Bargnani's) is considered bad).

              Bargnani will probably always have a PLACE in the NBA because of his scoring, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be considered valuable.
              Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
              Follow me on Twitter.

              Comment


              • Tim W. wrote: View Post
                I've got my realist hat on. The fact is that the most likely scenario is that Bargnani's trade value will continue to decline. Could some GMs still continue to grasp at straws? Sure, but fewer and fewer the older Bargnani gets. He just turned 26 and has been in the league 5 years. Next year he'll be 27 and it will be 6 years. It becomes harder and harder to believe he's going to be anything except what he is, even for gamblers. That means fewer and fewer takers and a decline of his trade value. I mean, it's certainly not going to go UP. And there's logic dictates it's not going to stay the same as he gets older.
                Here's where our opinions differ. You seem to assume two things that I disagree with:

                1) that all teams in the league are striving to win a championship rather than simply to fill seats and turn a profit (or simply to MAKE the playoffs, rather than to build a team to advance deep into them), and will therefore value defence and rebounding over offensive ability.
                2) that GMs are indeed intelligent people who are good at their jobs.

                Number 2 is really the main point of contention, and I think you've forgotten just how awful the decisions some GMs make are when they're backed into a corner or decide they need to shake things up. Some recent examples off the top of my head:

                1. Cleveland traded for Antawn Jamison and Mo Williams in order to chase a championship.
                2. Boston gave away Kendrick Perkins for Jeff Green because they felt his offense and ability to guard wings would trump Perkins' interior D.
                3. The Orlando Magic's recent moves involving Hedo and company.
                4. Phoenix's moves not only with the Magic, but also acquiring Shaq.
                5. Sacramento's deal trading down to get John Salmons and then trading away Omri Caspi.

                And that's before we get into overpaying for big men in contract negotiations, which I would argue is a good indication not only of how overvalued serviceable bigs are in the NBA, but how often NBA GMs are fooled or tempted by a small sample size of overachievement. I fully agree with you that Bargnani only does one thing well and that the potential his trade value once hinged on is quickly being extinguished. But if this is so, then his trade value is all the more tied to the quality of his play in the short term, not only as a showcase of ability but also as a rekindling of interest in said potential. All it might take to raise Barg's value is a month or two of Casey lighting a fire under his ass before the trade deadline or of carefree play at the end of another season in the tank to convince some hapless GM trying to save his job that Bargs could be the offensive spark his team needs.

                Value isn't necessarily a long term thing built up over time, nor is it solely a matter of perceived future potential. Just like in the free market, the price is set by what the buyer is willing to pay. And I'd argue there's plenty of evidence to suggest that NBA GMs are not the most rational of consumers, especially when it comes to big men.

                Comment


                • Lark Benson wrote: View Post
                  Here's where our opinions differ. You seem to assume two things that I disagree with:

                  1) that all teams in the league are striving to win a championship rather than simply to fill seats and turn a profit (or simply to MAKE the playoffs, rather than to build a team to advance deep into them), and will therefore value defence and rebounding over offensive ability.
                  2) that GMs are indeed intelligent people who are good at their jobs.

                  Number 2 is really the main point of contention, and I think you've forgotten just how awful the decisions some GMs make are when they're backed into a corner or decide they need to shake things up. Some recent examples off the top of my head:

                  1. Cleveland traded for Antawn Jamison and Mo Williams in order to chase a championship.
                  2. Boston gave away Kendrick Perkins for Jeff Green because they felt his offense and ability to guard wings would trump Perkins' interior D.
                  3. The Orlando Magic's recent moves involving Hedo and company.
                  4. Phoenix's moves not only with the Magic, but also acquiring Shaq.
                  5. Sacramento's deal trading down to get John Salmons and then trading away Omri Caspi.

                  And that's before we get into overpaying for big men in contract negotiations, which I would argue is a good indication not only of how overvalued serviceable bigs are in the NBA, but how often NBA GMs are fooled or tempted by a small sample size of overachievement. I fully agree with you that Bargnani only does one thing well and that the potential his trade value once hinged on is quickly being extinguished. But if this is so, then his trade value is all the more tied to the quality of his play in the short term, not only as a showcase of ability but also as a rekindling of interest in said potential. All it might take to raise Barg's value is a month or two of Casey lighting a fire under his ass before the trade deadline or of carefree play at the end of another season in the tank to convince some hapless GM trying to save his job that Bargs could be the offensive spark his team needs.

                  Value isn't necessarily a long term thing built up over time, nor is it solely a matter of perceived future potential. Just like in the free market, the price is set by what the buyer is willing to pay. And I'd argue there's plenty of evidence to suggest that NBA GMs are not the most rational of consumers, especially when it comes to big men.
                  Oh, believe me, I don't think every GM in the league is trying to win a Championship. But a guy like Bargnani doesn't exactly fill seats. And I think banking on a GM making a stupid move isn't exactly the best management technique.

                  And if Bargnani's value is hinged to his quality of play, then the Raptors really are in trouble if they keep him. I don't see him ever getting the same amount of shots per game and as much freedom on offense as he did last season. First of all, you know DeRozan is going to get more shots, which probably means less for Bargnani. Secondly, if Casey really is going to hold players accountable, then that means fewer minutes for Bargnani, who has never exactly earned the minutes he's been given since he was drafted.

                  There just seems to be far, far too many reasons to trade him now than to hang on to him.
                  Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                  Follow me on Twitter.

                  Comment


                  • Tim W. wrote: View Post
                    Oh, believe me, I don't think every GM in the league is trying to win a Championship. But a guy like Bargnani doesn't exactly fill seats.
                    20ppg scorers that space the floor for speedy guards to penetrate don't fill seats? I disagree, as do the legion of Bargs fans and apologists that linger among Raptors supporters. Casual fans greatly outnumber the diehards for any franchise.

                    And I think banking on a GM making a stupid move isn't exactly the best management technique.
                    That's just twisting my point to suit yours. I'm suggesting that you can always find a taker for what I maintain is a commodity that will continue to have value. It's not waiting for a GM to make a dumb move, it's finding one that has a perceived hole or need to fill, then offering to fill it when the time is right. And again, I maintain that a big that draws the opposing team's paint presence out to the 3 point line will always have value. My point about GMs being bad at their jobs was to illustrate that they often reach for solutions when under pressure.

                    And if Bargnani's value is hinged to his quality of play, then the Raptors really are in trouble if they keep him. I don't see him ever getting the same amount of shots per game and as much freedom on offense as he did last season. First of all, you know DeRozan is going to get more shots, which probably means less for Bargnani. Secondly, if Casey really is going to hold players accountable, then that means fewer minutes for Bargnani, who has never exactly earned the minutes he's been given since he was drafted.

                    There just seems to be far, far too many reasons to trade him now than to hang on to him.
                    Then who's going to take the shots? Unless DeRozan ups his shots by 10 per game or more, there will still be plenty for Bargs.

                    As for Casey giving Bargs fewer minutes, it might happen. But I'm arguing that Casey might light a fire under his ass and make him more tradeable. If that happens, why would he get less minutes?

                    Anyway, this is pointless, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. Difference in philosophy, leaving it at that.

                    Comment


                    • Somehow all this should once again be in the Bargnani thread. But you know what Lark? I hope you're right.

                      With all this extra time off I really really really really really hope Andrea comes back with a whole new attitude not only towards his own game, but for the better of the franchise as well. I never liked them drafting him in the first place, and I've still never warmed up to him in the slightest. Sure he can score, but as has been referenced around here countless times, he's not very efficient. I'm just hoping he somehow got word that this team is his for the taking, and that his given talents could easily outweigh those of pretty much any other player on our team considering the position he plays.(DeMar still has a ways to go along with Ed) Having said that, why am I to think he's going to magically turn it on, this being his sixth NBA season?

                      As for the OP, we need defense on this team going forward. Amir has shown he'll do it, we know Ed will definitely get much better than he already is, and big Val coming over next season could give us an excellent looking young front court for years to come. It's almost a guarantee we'll have a top 5-10 draft pick next season and with plenty of SF/PF's(some being combos) looking to come out next year(barring a new 20+ ruling) we could conceivably get a possible scorer in the mix to compliment DeRozan.

                      I guess the question would be, what would you rather go forward with as far as your three bigs are concerened. Or can the team afford to have four?

                      1. Bargs, Ed, Val
                      2. Ed, Amir, Val
                      3. Ed, Amir, Val, and Bargs

                      I'm going with #2. I think Bargs could fetch a decent draft choice or possible PG.

                      Comment


                      • Lark Benson wrote: View Post
                        20ppg scorers that space the floor for speedy guards to penetrate don't fill seats? I disagree, as do the legion of Bargs fans and apologists that linger among Raptors supporters. Casual fans greatly outnumber the diehards for any franchise.
                        Unless you're playing in Italy, I don't see a lot of fans clamouring to see a 7 foot jumpshooter. If that was the case, Dirk would have started at least once in the All-Star game, and he's miles better than Bargnani. How many other MVPs have never started in the All-Star game?

                        Lark Benson wrote: View Post
                        That's just twisting my point to suit yours. I'm suggesting that you can always find a taker for what I maintain is a commodity that will continue to have value. It's not waiting for a GM to make a dumb move, it's finding one that has a perceived hole or need to fill, then offering to fill it when the time is right. And again, I maintain that a big that draws the opposing team's paint presence out to the 3 point line will always have value. My point about GMs being bad at their jobs was to illustrate that they often reach for solutions when under pressure.
                        I'm not twisting your point. Just highlighting the fallacy of your argument. Basically what you're saying is that there's always going to be GMs wanting Bargnani because many of them make bad decisions. Besides, I've never said that Bargnani will become impossible to trade. There's no such thing, as we've learned with both Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis being traded. But his trade value will decline, so you'll get less value back for him, and possibly have to take back a bad contract in return. Again, that's not good management. Especially not when you're trying to build a young team.

                        Lark Benson wrote: View Post
                        Then who's going to take the shots? Unless DeRozan ups his shots by 10 per game or more, there will still be plenty for Bargs.

                        As for Casey giving Bargs fewer minutes, it might happen. But I'm arguing that Casey might light a fire under his ass and make him more tradeable. If that happens, why would he get less minutes?

                        Anyway, this is pointless, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. Difference in philosophy, leaving it at that.
                        Last season, Bargnani took the 9th most shots in the entire league and only 30 players played more minutes per game than he did. If Casey is really going to hold Bargnani accountable, then unless a miracle happens, Bargnani's minutes will be affected. Besides, let's take a look at the minutes available. For the center and PF position, you've got 96 mpg. You've got Ed Davis, who'll probably play close to 30 mpg this season (after playing 25 last year), and Amir Johnson, who'll play, at least, the 25 mpg he played last season. Then there's Alibi, who will get some burn this year from what we're to believe, so there's another 10-15 mpg.

                        Now, I'm not astro-physicist, but that seems to add up to about 65-70 mpg, which leaves just 22-27 minutes left. Now I don't think Bargnani's only going to play 27 mpg, so he'll obviously take a few minutes from someone, but he's not going to be playing 35 mpg again this season. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that Colangelo might sign a veteran center since Bargnani apparently isn't a center anymore, er, ever. So without the minutes he got last year, he's simply not going to get the same amount of shots.

                        Speaking of the amount of shots, you're assuming that other players simply can't take on one or two more shots. DeRozan will no doubt take more shots, as will Davis and Amir, and you're forgetting that Kleiza will return this season and will probably take at least 10 spg if healthy (which he did before he got injured. Barbosa also was injured and can be counted on to take plenty of shots when healthy. The whole "you need to get scoring from somewhere" argument never works because finding players to take shots is probably the least difficult thing in the NBA.

                        Let's just take a closer look at that for a moment. Last year, the Raptors attempted 82 shots per game, yet Bargnani, DeRozan, Barbosa, Kleiza, Bayless, Calderon, Amir, James Johnson and Ed Davis together took 90.6 shots per game. And that doesn't even include the players who aren't with the team anymore like Sonny Weems and Reggie Evans. So just the returning players took 8 more shots per game than the entire Raptors team did. Obviously the reason is because Kleiza missed most of the year to injury, Barbosa and Davis missed at least a month. In fact, it's easier to name the players on the roster who DIDN'T miss significant time to injury.

                        And that's one big reason why Bargnani was able to take 17 shots per game. And don't forget that DeRozan averaged 16.7 shots after the All-Star break, more than two over his seasonal average.

                        COULD Bargnani equal or increase his scoring average over last season? Sure. Is it much more likely his scoring will actually decrease to below the magical 20 ppg number? Absolutely. And you can't honestly tell me that his trade value will not decrease if and when that happens.
                        Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                        Follow me on Twitter.

                        Comment


                        • Lark Benson wrote: View Post
                          20ppg scorers that space the floor for speedy guards to penetrate don't fill seats? I disagree, as do the legion of Bargs fans and apologists that linger among Raptors supporters. Casual fans greatly outnumber the diehards for any franchise.
                          http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2011

                          unless I'm mistaken... last season was the Raps worst season for average attendance in the last decade (only goes back 10 years). So apparently no, 20ppg scorers that space the floor for others, but can't rebound and help lead to the worst team defense in the NBA for 2 consecutive years does not fill seats.

                          And casual fans do greatly outnumber the diehards... and they want to watch something that is either exciting and/or leads to winning.

                          Comment


                          • Tim W. wrote: View Post
                            Unless you're playing in Italy, I don't see a lot of fans clamouring to see a 7 foot jumpshooter. If that was the case, Dirk would have started at least once in the All-Star game, and he's miles better than Bargnani. How many other MVPs have never started in the All-Star game?
                            Tim Duncan
                            Kevin Garnett
                            Amare Stoudemire
                            Carmello Anthony
                            Kevin Durant

                            Those are the reasons why Dirk hasn't started. The F spots on the west team are the most competitive of the all-star spots. If Dirk played in the East, he would have started multiple times. All-star game voting is hardly an indication of what fans will pay to see or will support in their local franchise.

                            I'm not twisting your point. Just highlighting the fallacy of your argument. Basically what you're saying is that there's always going to be GMs wanting Bargnani because many of them make bad decisions. Besides, I've never said that Bargnani will become impossible to trade. There's no such thing, as we've learned with both Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis being traded. But his trade value will decline, so you'll get less value back for him, and possibly have to take back a bad contract in return. Again, that's not good management. Especially not when you're trying to build a young team.
                            No, you're reading what you want to see, highlighting one part of my argument while ignoring it's place within the whole. Again, my point isn't that you'd be waiting for a GM to make a mistake, it's that you'd be waiting for the right time to sell high on a commodity that I continue to maintain has more value to NBA GMs than it does to you as a fan. That GMs make mistakes is a consequence of the pressures they face and to which NBA fans sitting in their chairs at home are immune. In the context of keeping Bargnani on the team for one more season (which, again, I probably mistakenly assumed would be 11/12 and not 12/13), that means seeing if a stretch of good play either before the trade deadline or end of the season would increase his value enough to allow for a better deal. We both agree that Bargnani isn't worth much, and that he certainly isn't likely to fetch a quality prospect or draft pick in return unless it's bundled with a bad contract. It's simply my opinion that waiting for the right time to strike might allow for a return such as a quality prospect or pick, and that the risk involved would outweigh the chance that his trade value may drop incrementally from another season of typical Bargnani production. I maintain that Bargnani's trade value is based almost solely on his production at this point and therefore that the idea of his value dropping considerably due his potential not being realized is overstated.


                            Last season, Bargnani took the 9th most shots in the entire league and only 30 players played more minutes per game than he did. If Casey is really going to hold Bargnani accountable, then unless a miracle happens, Bargnani's minutes will be affected. Besides, let's take a look at the minutes available. For the center and PF position, you've got 96 mpg. You've got Ed Davis, who'll probably play close to 30 mpg this season (after playing 25 last year), and Amir Johnson, who'll play, at least, the 25 mpg he played last season. Then there's Alibi, who will get some burn this year from what we're to believe, so there's another 10-15 mpg.
                            I'm just quoting this to stand in for the entire remaining argument, to save space.

                            Now first off, I'm not an astrophysicist either, but your math is off. You correctly state that there are 96 minutes available then go on to account for 92 of them (65+27 or 70+22). But my real problem is that you seem to think that those minutes can be allocated without regard to matchups or pairings. Now let me say that I'm under the assumption, and I would argue that this entire thread is as well, that we're looking at the team without BC adding another big, so you can't suddenly toss that in. And without another big, playing Johnson and Davis together is not exactly ideal, especially offensively. If we assume for example that Bargnani will play most of his minutes with Calderon or Bayless, DeRozan, Johnson and one of Davis and Johnson, Bargnani is still (sadly) the first option on offense unless DeMar's game has made huge strides.

                            As to the idea that more shots will be taken by others on the team, what basis is there for this? If Casey is indeed going to hold players accountable, then wouldn't it follow that role players taking more shots, presumably out of the flow of the offense because they're role players, would result in their getting fewer opportunities to take those shots? Wouldn't the majority of the shots continue to be funnelled to the players that are (for better or worse) the best scorers on the team? You really think that someone like Kleiza, coming off an injury and without the opportunity to play the 4, is going to continue jacking up 3s at a 300% clip before getting benched? Are these same Raptors who were so injury plagued last season magically going to last the entire season without injury during this hypothetical season? As you correctly stated, getting players to take shots in the NBA is not exactly difficult, but there are a finite number of shots in any single game and the distribution of those shots is far more significant than the totals. And unless the Raptors make a point of spreading the ball around in the name of development over wins, then why would the distribution change much? I would add that in my scenario of keeping Bargnani in order to showcase him, the idea of reducing his shots is completely counter-intuitive.

                            Furthermore, my argument for keeping Bargs in the short-term is based on the idea (which I stated in my earlier posts) that Bargs could increase his value not only by scoring more, but also alternatively scoring more efficiently (ie taking fewer but better shots) or by having some of the bad defender stigma neutralized by the Raps being a better defensive team under Casey, whether with Bargnani improving in that area or in spite of him not. I understand that you're arguing against my point that the 'shots have to come from somewhere', which admittedly is a crude point that's ripe for dissecting. But again you've ignored the context of my total argument in order to pick at that single point.

                            Now lastly, to the idea that his value will decrease if his average slides below 20ppg. Disagree completely. First off it seems to assume that a team would be trading for him as a first option on offence, which I find unlikely at best. You and I agree that he is not that valuable and I think it's reasonable to assume NBA GMs would as well, which makes the 20ppg number completely arbitrary and values scoring totals over efficiency. I stated in a previous post that while scoring averages may account for value in salary, the market value (ie trade value) for a player is what another GM is willing to exchange for them. If Bargnani has proven he can score 20ppg in the season previous but that number then drops with fewer shots (again, your assumption, not mine), then why would a GM shy away from trading for Bargnani if his team can offer that same number of shots? Presumably they are trading for Bargnani either to allow him the freedom to put up a lot of shots, or they are envisioning him playing a reduced role and trading for his skillset and therefore reducing his shots per game, in which case it would be completely unreasonable to assume that he could maintain such an average, making 20ppg an arbitrary and irrelevant number.

                            Anyway, I really am done with this now. I've wasted waaaaaay to much time on this and remembered why I should stay away from arguing on the internet in the first place.

                            Comment


                            • GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                              no? then how can you possibly make any statement regarding "filling seats"? Or would you rather just use unfalsifiable information to 'prove' your point?

                              As for the figures... I related them only to previous Raps attendance not league wide so they are actually relative. Obviously different markets will have different abilities to sell tickets or put butts in the seats for a variety of reasons, thats why comparing Toronto's ticket sales to previous Toronto ticket sales (as opposed to Cleveland or Washington) makes sense. And remember YOU were the one who said fans came out to watch Bargani, and I said nothing about Demar. The actual information proves that what you said was untrue. In fact if it proves anything, its the exact opposite of what you stated. (oh and just off hand the 'recession' didn't technically exist last season (although I'm not going to get into a debate regarding the definition of a recession), it ended prior to that .... even if you don't agree with that statement, ticket sales were greater in the 2008/09 and 09/10 season when the 'recession' was worse.... so no that excuse doesn't fly either)

                              Ofcourse these are statistics and as they never correspond with what Bargnani fans THINK is or should be happening, they must ofcourse be wrong.
                              I didn't think I had to state it, but you honestly think that attendance being down relative to previous years was not an obvious consequence of losing Bosh and the expectations that the team was going to suck (which it did)?

                              Relating the attendance figures to other teams was to show that despite an obvious letdown in the quality of the team and difficult economic choices to be made, fans continued to attend games, which I think does indeed prove my point. Fans paid to see the team during a recession because they loved to see them play; they made a choice with their money. Fewer of them continued to pay to watch the team play post-Bosh, but my point is that the drop is not as precipitous as it should have been given the awful quality of play, because it should have been an obvious choice to save the money and not attend games if the fans didn't care.

                              My point that attendance figures don't matter was in relation specifically to your point that attendance was down relative to previous years. They do matter, just not in the context you provided. My mistake for not stating that more clearly.

                              And as for the idea that the recession 'ended' at a certain time, you clearly don't understand economics if you think that the lingering effects on personal wealth and savings don't affect purchasing decisions over longer periods than individual years. You don't suddenly wake up one more morning, turn on the news, hear the the recession has 'ended' and go out to spend the money you lost over the last few years.

                              And lastly, don't lump me in with Bargnani supporters. I'm not one, which I've stated in my posts. Just because I'm defending his trade value doesn't mean I like him as a player.

                              Comment


                              • Lark Benson wrote: View Post
                                Tim Duncan
                                Kevin Garnett
                                Amare Stoudemire
                                Carmello Anthony
                                Kevin Durant

                                Those are the reasons why Dirk hasn't started. The F spots on the west team are the most competitive of the all-star spots. If Dirk played in the East, he would have started multiple times. All-star game voting is hardly an indication of what fans will pay to see or will support in their local franchise.
                                And those guys were more popular, and that's the point. Amare, Carmelo and Durant made it ahead of Dirk despite being Dirk being a better player. And while I have a lot of problems with All-Star voting, what it is a good indication of is the popularity of a player.

                                Besides, are you really trying to tell me that Bargnani would bring fans in? Really? A guy who probably will never make an All-Star team?

                                And to answer RapthoseLeafs comment, Bargnani will certainly bring in a few Italian fans, but he's certainly not enough of a draw to make enough of a difference in the box office. Very few people are going to buy season tickets based on whether or not Bargnani is on the team.

                                Lark Benson wrote: View Post
                                I'm just quoting this to stand in for the entire remaining argument, to save space.
                                Likewise.

                                Now one of the biggest differences we seem to have regarding Bargnani is what his trade value is based on. But in actuality, we see more eye to eye than you think. Now, you feel his trade value is based mostly on his productivity rather than potential, yet you want to keep him longer because you feel there's a good chance that Casey will be able to get more out of Bargnani. Isn't that exactly what Bargnani defenders have been saying, and isn't that saying that is only Bargnani had the right coach and the right system, he'd be more valuable?

                                Besides, if his trade value is based on his productivity, then why would you pay a guy $11 million dollars for basically something that Ryan Anderson or Matt Bonner can do for the fraction of the price. Now, obviously those guys don't have the skills that Bargnani does, but you said yourself that no one would trade for him to become their first or second option, but simply as a big who can spread the floor. Hell, at least Anderson and Bonner aren't liabilities half the time their on the floor. And Ryan Anderson actually had a higher PER than Bargnani.

                                Now, it's my contention that Bargnani's trade value peaked in the summer of 2010. Back then, you could have argued that he simply hadn't been given a chance to shine (although I would have argued against that) or some of the other many arguments his defenders used that summer. It wasn't a rare opinion that he might finally be able to measure up to the potential he apparently had. And then he was given the chance and, while he certainly was able to score at a good rate, his season was considered by most to be a disappointment, mostly due to his lack of development on defense and on the boards.

                                Now we've got one more excuse. That Bargnani simply needs a good defensive coach to kick his butt. Not nearly as many people are drinking the Kool-Aid on this one, but there are enough to show that people still believe he has the potential to be a better player. Maybe not great, but better. Even you.

                                The problem with that is, what happens if he DOESN'T improve? What happens to his trade value, then? You are right that GMs tend to gamble, but the more excuses you cross of the list for Bargnani, the less likely a GM is going to want to gamble on a guy who arguably doesn't even have a positive effect when he's on the floor. If you've got an asset that probably won't go up in value much, if at all, but has a better chance of going down, then the smart thing to do is trade that asset for something else.

                                As for the whole shots per game argument, obviously my argument isn't based on any science, but the fact of the matter is that Bargnani took more shots per game last year than Bosh did at any time in his career. And a lot of that was due to the fact that 2 of the 3 players who were expected to help share the scoring burden missed significant time to injury. While injuries happen, it's not likely that literally half of your expected top scorers are going to miss nearly an entire season between them. In the 39 games that Kleiza did play, most of those injured, apparently, his still took 10 shots per game.

                                Lastly, this argument that you can't have a front court of Valanciunas, Davis and Amir because none of them are great scorers, until Chris Bosh came along, do you know how much the next highest scoring Raptor big man scored? 14.5 ppg. It was Antonio Davis.

                                I think a front line that all play defense, rebound and score efficiently trumps a front line that can score, but can't rebound or play consistent defense.

                                Lark Benson wrote: View Post
                                Anyway, I really am done with this now. I've wasted waaaaaay to much time on this and remembered why I should stay away from arguing on the internet in the first place.
                                I felt that this was an intelligent and entertaining discussion, which seems to be a rarity on the internet. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.
                                Last edited by Tim W.; Sun Nov 6, 2011, 03:09 AM.
                                Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                                Follow me on Twitter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X