Primer wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
David Aldridge's off-season grades. Toronto Raptors: 18
Collapse
X
-
-
Apollo wrote: View PostI think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.
Comment
-
Apollo wrote: View PostI think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.@Chr1st1anL
Comment
-
Apollo wrote: View PostI think you're in the minority if you're taking Colangelo at face value that he would have made that same inflated offer to Landry even if Nash wasn't in play. It makes no sense considering what was still on the market. No, wait, it makes no sense regardless of that.
Comment
-
And that's all everyone was talking about when it first leaked and right up until Nash bailed on the Toronto idea. Then the spin doctors went to work repairing the damage... They deserve a raise.
Chr1s1anL wrote: View PostWhat potential 3's where still on the market?
Comment
-
Apollo wrote: View PostAnd that's all everyone was talking about when it first leaked and right up until Nash bailed on the Toronto idea. Then the spin doctors went to work repairing the damage... They deserve a raise.
I don't know off hand but why does that matter? Since when did the terms "responsible" and "at all costs" start fitting together?@Chr1st1anL
Comment
-
Apollo wrote: View PostI don't know off hand but why does that matter? Since when did the terms "responsible" and "at all costs" start fitting together?Chr1s1anL wrote: View PostI feel like he was the best option to upgrade the 3 left. When players like iggy and gay were not available.
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2012/6...small-forwards
landry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.
Comment
-
Miekenstien wrote: View Posti just googled 2012 nba sf free agents and this is the first list that came up
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2012/6...small-forwards
landry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.
We can all say woulda, coulda, shoulda, but we all know how hard it is to attract a big free agent. We offered everything we could to Nash, yet he went to a team he despises and has had past battles with.Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.
Comment
-
RaptorReuben wrote: View PostWe can all say woulda, coulda, shoulda, but we all know how hard it is to attract a big free agent.
to me woulda, coulda, shoulda is about the same as pretending fields was his own entity after the actual target went somewhere else.
he will be a great piece for us. i was very happy with the move, i don't think the contract is as bad as lot of people think it is and i understand how the team has to support him publicly. bc or casey can't say we threw money at him to help us grab nash now that we didn't get nash. i can guarentee that if nash had of come to the team this move would have been spun as the move that allowed us to sign nash and we got both of our "main" targets in what bc would have called "his most succesful" offseason since our atlantic division winning team.
in short
-fields=good
-wasn't the only/best(imo) option available at the 3
-slightly overpaid
-is, of course, being supported by his team
Comment
-
Miekenstien wrote: View Postagreed, but i threw that out there to answer someone else of other options that were available at the 3. we didn't even make a move on any of those 3 players.
to me woulda, coulda, shoulda is about the same as pretending fields was his own entity after the actual target went somewhere else.
he will be a great piece for us. i was very happy with the move, i don't think the contract is as bad as lot of people think it is and i understand how the team has to support him publicly. bc or casey can't say we threw money at him to help us grab nash now that we didn't get nash. i can guarentee that if nash had of come to the team this move would have been spun as the move that allowed us to sign nash and we got both of our "main" targets in what bc would have called "his most succesful" offseason since our atlantic division winning team.
in short
-fields=good
-wasn't the only/best(imo) option available at the 3
-slightly overpaid
-is, of course, being supported by his team
Fields was not originally a big target at the time, being it was used to block out the S&T to Phoenix, but when we offered the contract, I was extremely happy anyways.
In my opinion:
Fields = Good with solid ceiling
= One of the only options available that would actually sign with the team
= Slightly overpaid, but restricted free agent signings usually call for it
= Any case, fits the team system of defense, toughness, shooting, and IQ.Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.
Comment
-
Apollo wrote: View PostAnd that's all everyone was talking about when it first leaked and right up until Nash bailed on the Toronto idea. Then the spin doctors went to work repairing the damage... They deserve a raise.
I don't know off hand but why does that matter? Since when did the terms "responsible" and "at all costs" start fitting together?
Yes, we overpaid by ~$2M a year in my opinion. And having an overpaid SG/SF can prevent us from pursuing a better one at a fairer market price should one become available.
The other thing that makes me shrug is how many RR posters overvalue 1st round draft picks when we are to acquire them but are quick to dismiss them when we trade them. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Lowry trade was a good one but that's because I am not in love with the potential of having the possibility of drafting prospect with perceived high ceiling that they will likely never touch with a ten-foot pole.
Comment
-
Chr1s1anL wrote: View PostI feel like he was the best option to upgrade the 3 left. When players like iggy and gay were not available.
Comment
-
Matt52 wrote: View PostI think the Raps deserve to be at least 15. The reason why is they got better.
Forget contracts, just look at talent. They are younger, deeper, with more (of the very overused word) potential, and, therefore,better.
The reason behind 15 is very primitive and easily debunked but I'll go for it anyways. Not every team will be better. If one team is better, presumably another team is going to get worse because of it. Since better/worse is based on wins/losses, everyone can't get better, can they? Someone still has to lose the game and there are only 1230 games played in an 82 game, 30 team season (someone can double check my math!). A win won by a team comes at the expense of a win from another team somewhere.
So if half the teams are better (and I think the Raps are one of them) then half the teams must have become worse..... so 15 for Toronto!
**The other thing to keep in mind is few other teams in the league have a rabid fan base like Toronto. Putting them in a few notches lower is a great way to generate attention to an article.**
Comment
-
Chr1s1anL wrote: View PostI feel like he was the best option to upgrade the 3 left. When players like iggy and gay were not available.
RaptorReuben wrote: View PostI agree, but Batum would've had to been overpaid dearly beyond Fields
Landry got paid because Colangelo really wanted Steve Nash at all costs. Does anyone feel Landry can live up to his contract? I don't. I just hope people don't start riding the poor guy because his game doesn't match his income (you know it's going to happen at some point). Landry was a gamble on Nash. We know the outcome.
One is up in the air. One is a fail.
Miekenstien wrote: View Postlandry isn't even on it because i think they say he is a 2. from this list i would take grant hill/batum and against what a lot of people say, beasley, over landry. the beas would have been a lot cheaper, hill would have been a great vet and batum would have had more potential.
Here's a question for all. If Colangelo was not on a contract year do you feel he would be operating the off-season like he has so far?
Comment
-
IMO, yes. Im not sure about the terms of his contract, but either way, if the owners end up not liking the deals he's made, then they can fire him any time. I think he's well established enough in the league that he knows he'll be able to find a job in some capacity so he probably wont play it safe, contract year or not.
IMO, Fields was a pawn, no more no less. I think BC knew it would be a win-semi win gamble on their part if they took a risk on Fields as a pawn in the Nash signing. It wouldve been a tremendous win if they got steve nash and partial win even if they end up with Fields. I think JJ was gone regardless of the Fields signing.
Comment
Comment