After the Gay trade and probably more to come, it is quite clear it(option) will be picked up. If not these trades make no sense. Despite the long play off drought, I'm still in favour of this. It seems like BC is using this year to add some valuable pieces for next year. It only makes sense to keep him for another year to see if his moves are paying off.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Should Colangelo's third year option be picked up?
Collapse
X
-
Sig wrote: View PostMy stance on the topic has always been the same. Which is to not judge things based off of a small sample and make drastic conclusions.
Not a fan of pointing people out in particular as it leads to writing essays which I'm also not a fan of. I once failed English class..
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said "don't know what the f*ck they're talking about"...
m'bad guys
As it relates to the thread my opinion on Extending BC has always been the same.... Who else would we get to do it that would be better?
In the whole league there are really only a couple of guys who have a track record of being able to take teams (that are not the celtics or lakers) and make them competitive with really keen moves. Sam presti, San Antonio's GM (don't know his name), Kevin o'connor, Pat Riley and maybe Denver's GM.
Anyone else we get to fill the position will be another guy coming and in moving player A to team B and then we cross our fingers.
At least with BC we know:
1. He can make moves and it does not take him long to drastically change the whole team if he doesn't like where we are headed
2. He drafts well (I am including the bargnani pick which at the time still made a lot of sense...his babying of bargs did not)
3. He has managed to put together a playoff calibre team at this point and we have more talent today than we have had in 10 years.
BC has made critical mistakes in his tenure, hedo and triano being by far the worst, but it makes no sense to change him unless we can bring on someone with a proven track record.
Comment
-
Sig wrote: View PostWhat did I type that would indicate me talking nonsense? Is it not true?
as far as you talking about the vocal people on here like they don't know what they're talking about and all they do is complain and don't have any opinions.. back up dude.. you are not immune to this, ive seen you complain and talk nonsense on this forum just like all of us do from time to time. so what?? I seem to recall after the Boston game you were "complaining" how gay didn't get enough touches in the 4th quarter and u were upset that he wasn't taking more shots.. I didn't call you out and say "you don't know what the fuck you're talking about" I just informed you that gay was actually 1/9 in the 4th quarter..
no need to get all out of sorts and make ridiculous comments like that when people have a different opinion than yours, especially when you don't even want to give your opinion. that's just nonsense.Last edited by Machine; Sun Feb 10, 2013, 01:25 AM.
Comment
-
BallaBalla wrote: View PostNot sure what the point of THAT whole thing was but anyway.....
As it relates to the thread my opinion on Extending BC has always been the same.... Who else would we get to do it that would be better?
In the whole league there are really only a couple of guys who have a track record of being able to take teams (that are not the celtics or lakers) and make them competitive with really keen moves. Sam presti, San Antonio's GM (don't know his name), Kevin o'connor, Pat Riley and maybe Denver's GM.
Anyone else we get to fill the position will be another guy coming and in moving player A to team B and then we cross our fingers.
At least with BC we know:
1. He can make moves and it does not take him long to drastically change the whole team if he doesn't like where we are headed
2. He drafts well (I am including the bargnani pick which at the time still made a lot of sense...his babying of bargs did not)
3. He has managed to put together a playoff calibre team at this point and we have more talent today than we have had in 10 years.
BC has made critical mistakes in his tenure, hedo and triano being by far the worst, but it makes no sense to change him unless we can bring on someone with a proven track record.
It's also funny that Denver's (Ujiri) was from BC's front office.
Comment
-
-
Sig wrote: View PostMy stance on the topic has always been the same. Which is to not judge things based off of a small sample and make drastic conclusions.
Not a fan of pointing people out in particular as it leads to writing essays which I'm also not a fan of. I once failed English class..
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said "don't know what the f*ck they're talking about"...
m'bad guys
It's also why if you hated him, the best chance to see him let go pre-trade was way back after Triano's last season. A new GM could've been offered his choice of new coach, and we had a high lottery pick, though I'm glad that JV was chosen and glad BC made the selection, so who knows how things could've been different.Last edited by white men can't jump; Sat Feb 9, 2013, 11:37 PM.
Comment
-
I'll back up sig on this one. To go from bc has to go, to ask for his third year option to be picked up is pretty ridiculous. I mean if he had gotten rid of bargnani, then sure, I can see some opinions change, but I would definitely say that I've seen some flip-flopping. Mostly, I think it's about wanting the franchise to be successful and hoping for the best from the people involved. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but does lead to heartbreak.
As for me, I did vote for his third year option to be picked up, but I've never called for his head to roll. This whole season I wanted to see what he would do with bargnani, and still do! If bargnani is traded or comes off the bench for the rest of the season then I have no issue with his 3rd option being picked up. However if bargnani works his way back as a starter, then I definitely what him gone BC and bargs both.
There was no point in the ownership allowing the Gay trade unless they were willing to see how it worked out for at least 1 year. I don't think it makes sense from an ownership stand point to bring in a new guy, who may want to blow it up and do his own thing. I think that ownership has already decided to pick up his 3rd year unless something happens that they really don't like."They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014
"I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015
"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon
Comment
-
ezz_bee wrote: View PostI'll back up sig on this one. To go from bc has to go, to ask for his third year option to be picked up is pretty ridiculous. I mean if he had gotten rid of bargnani, then sure, I can see some opinions change, but I would definitely say that I've seen some flip-flopping. Mostly, I think it's about wanting the franchise to be successful and hoping for the best from the people involved. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but does lead to heartbreak.
As for me, I did vote for his third year option to be picked up, but I've never called for his head to roll. This whole season I wanted to see what he would do with bargnani, and still do! If bargnani is traded or comes off the bench for the rest of the season then I have no issue with his 3rd option being picked up. However if bargnani works his way back as a starter, then I definitely what him gone BC and bargs both.
There was no point in the ownership allowing the Gay trade unless they were willing to see how it worked out for at least 1 year. I don't think it makes sense from an ownership stand point to bring in a new guy, who may want to blow it up and do his own thing. I think that ownership has already decided to pick up his 3rd year unless something happens that they really don't like.
I've never called for BC's head either but I can certainly see why it makes logical sense for people who were against BC to have changed their minds about him picking up the option. It's not flip-flopping when the whole situation changes. Its adapting to change using logical thinking. I don't get what the big deal is about people changing their minds like its a cardinal sin or something, especially when the circumstances have changed.
Comment
-
Sig wrote: View PostOf course it is. But I think I know why you decided to make it now - to test the waters and see how people feel now after a big win where people are sure to have lightened up on Bargnani and Colangelo. You're expecting opinions to change, as did I.
Sig wrote: View PostI fail to see how what I said is not valid? It's not an opinion, it's fact, happens all the time.
What difference does the length of his extension make? The fact of the matter is that you people that were calling for his head literally 10 days ago(!); still want him here. Okay...... that's great. I'm not disagreeing with anything, but was the Rudy Gay deal all it took to win some of you over? To make you forget of all the fucking mind-blowingly stupid things that have happened in the not-at-all distant past? Is your twitter campaign still running? Or is it on a hiatus? I see that you've voted in favor of an extension.
Landing Rudy Gay for Jose/ED/2nd rd pick was a coup, a huge talent upgrade, and addresses a hole that has been left unplugged for 5 years.
Sig wrote: View PostWhy not see where this goes? Isn't that exactly what was said back when Chris Bosh left? Or when we traded for O'Neal? (which was awful btw) Or when we played 2 full seasons with lineups starring overrated volume shooters, 3rd stringers, and D-leaguers? Where we also won about 10 meaningless games that f*cked us over in the draft?
Why not have someone new in charge right now? What, only Colangelo knows a good route to go from here?
Why not have someone new? Sure that is an option but there appears to be progress in the current plan for the first time in a long time.
I did not say Colangelo only knows a good route to go from here. I said it will be evident in one more season success or failure given the length of contracts of Gay and Lowry and the development of DD/JV/TR.
Sig wrote: View PostNice job BC. I'm guessing those four years were just test runs and not actual attempts at doing your ridiculously over-payed job.
Sig wrote: View PostYes, opinions do change. But many are going to opposite sides of the spectrum based off of 2 games, which is astonishing to me. Same thing goes for opinions on Rudy Gay.
---
I hope you don't take what I said the wrong way, it wasn't attacks on you, just clearing things up a little
Comment
-
octothorp wrote: View PostWell, that's pretty black and white. You'd want to see Colangelo's option picked up if he trades Bargnani for a worse player on a similar contract (Let's say, Tyrus Thomas, for the sake of argument)? Similarly, you'd want to let go of Colangelo if he keeps Bargnani, makes a couple depth moves, and the team goes on a crazy streak from here until the end of the season with Bargnani as a big part of that?
Don't get me wrong, Bargnani is still the first big contract guy I'd want to trade on this team. But moving him to save his job should be the last thing anyone wants BC to do.“The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King
Comment
-
Sig wrote: View PostI haven't even given my opinion on this yet. I'm just taking a shot at the general fanbase as it's pretty ludicrous that these mood swings happen at least 48 times a year. On the same topic...
Comment
-
Balls of Steel wrote: View PostThere's nothing in my post that hinted that Bargs should just be moved for anything including someone like a Boozer, in order for him to stay. What I'm saying is that not picking up his option while Bargs is around is just a means to end the love affair (that includes them getting into a crazy streak - streaks end, then what?). Let's say that it does "work out" BC will not move him. We know it will never "work out".
Comment
-
BallaBalla wrote: View PostI disagree that bargs is this much of a factor in BCs legacy. Given the direction we are headed now, all we need to do is get to te playoffs with bargs traded or in his adjusted role and no one will care
Someone who has the balls to deal Andrea to the best bidder takes courage but I'm not confident BC can do it once things "work out".“The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King
Comment
-
Actually, I feel we should regardless if Bargnani is on the roster or not. I would like to see where this goes, especially because we've addressed all our needs - small forward, star player, point guard for the future.
For the very first time, we aren't worrying about a point guard controversy, and looking constantly for a small forward. That itself says that BC has something planned for the future.Twitter: @ReubenJRD • NBA, Raptors writer for Daily Hive Vancouver, Toronto.
Comment
Comment