Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Can someone explain something to me?

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

  • Can someone explain something to me?

    Can someone explain to me exactly why did BC not take the Bargnani and Lucas for Boozer and Robinson trade, run and never look back? Just curious after watching the Brooklyn/Bulls game where Boozer had 29 points and 18 rebounds and Robinson hit the game winning shot along with 12 points and 5 assists.

  • #2
    Blacklash2k4 wrote: View Post
    Can someone explain to me exactly why did BC not take the Bargnani and Lucas for Boozer and Robinson trade, run and never look back? Just curious after watching the Brooklyn/Bulls game where Boozer had 29 points and 18 rebounds and Robinson hit the game winning shot along with 12 points and 5 assists.
    Because Bargnani is a rich mans Dirk Nowitzki with elite defense and John Lucas IIIS the second coming of mighty mouse. In all seriousness he probably was afraid of taking even more money in (Booze is making something like 18mil. per)

    Comment


    • #3
      Because people have super short foresight and want to base a trade on one game?

      Comment


      • #4
        Because Colangelo is a goddamn retard
        @sweatpantsjer

        Comment


        • #5
          The easy answer is that Bryan is an idiot, and I think that's partially true, but what scares me is that the board was not willing to go into luxury tax (which they had to do if they got Boozer).

          Why that's scary is because Bell/Rogers are one of the richest owners in all of sport yet only seem to be interested in their bottom line. If they would not be willing to go into luxury tax now, will they ever be willing to do it?

          Comment


          • #6
            planetmars wrote: View Post
            The easy answer is that Bryan is an idiot, and I think that's partially true, but what scares me is that the board was not willing to go into luxury tax (which they had to do if they got Boozer).

            Why that's scary is because Bell/Rogers are one of the richest owners in all of sport yet only seem to be interested in their bottom line. If they would not be willing to go into luxury tax now, will they ever be willing to do it?
            My bet is they own the Raptors solely to say they own the Raptors.
            Twitter - @thekid_it

            Comment


            • #7
              Easy.

              Because if they got rid of Bargs and Lucas they would have never been able to secure that lucrative advertising contract for Diamond & Diamond Personal Injury Lawyers

              Comment


              • #8
                My bet is because he believes/or believed he can make something else happen. Boozer is old, has a large salary that would further increase the likelihood of no other signings/trades (how many years left for that guy?) ,is a poor help defender, has had injury issues in the past.

                I am not a fan of boozer.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I'm just curious but was that trade ever a real offer or just a rumored offer?
                  your pal,
                  ebrian

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    planetmars wrote: View Post
                    The easy answer is that Bryan is an idiot, and I think that's partially true, but what scares me is that the board was not willing to go into luxury tax (which they had to do if they got Boozer).

                    Why that's scary is because Bell/Rogers are one of the richest owners in all of sport yet only seem to be interested in their bottom line. If they would not be willing to go into luxury tax now, will they ever be willing to do it?
                    what's REALLY scary about this is they were willing to go ahead with the Rudy trade though, which put us on the precipice.
                    @sweatpantsjer

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Colangelo's moves (and non-moves) can be understood through two lenses: maneuver warfare; and the Red Queen Theory.

                      In terms of maneuver warfare, Colangelo loves to stay active and continually make moves. He cleary values flexibility and the ability to adapt and change course. One of my complaints with Colangelo is his resistance to go "all-in". He wants the best of all worlds (winning, developing young players, maintaining some cap freedom). Sadly, instead of getting the best of all worlds, he's mostly got the worst. In fact, most of the activity has been busy work and amounts to the Raps running very fast (lots of roster turnover) to basically stay in exactly the same place (the Red Queen Theory part).

                      There's something to be said for Colangelo's overall approach in terms of wanting to retain fliexibility and the ability to adapt on the fly and I'm not arguing it can't work. Unfortunately, the actual decision-making has largely been poor. Colangelo to me is like the mediocre chess player who has great strategy and understands the theory but, when it comes to actually playing, can't find the right move.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        slaw wrote: View Post
                        Colangelo's moves (and non-moves) can be understood through two lenses: maneuver warfare; and the Red Queen Theory.

                        In terms of maneuver warfare, Colangelo loves to stay active and continually make moves. He cleary values flexibility and the ability to adapt and change course. One of my complaints with Colangelo is his resistance to go "all-in". He wants the best of all worlds (winning, developing young players, maintaining some cap freedom). Sadly, instead of getting the best of all worlds, he's mostly got the worst. In fact, most of the activity has been busy work and amounts to the Raps running very fast (lots of roster turnover) to basically stay in exactly the same place (the Red Queen Theory part).

                        There's something to be said for Colangelo's overall approach in terms of wanting to retain fliexibility and the ability to adapt on the fly and I'm not arguing it can't work. Unfortunately, the actual decision-making has largely been poor. Colangelo to me is like the mediocre chess player who has great strategy and understands the theory but, when it comes to actually playing, can't find the right move.
                        so is it the right move or the wrong move? you didn't say.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't think the rumoured transaction(Boozer, Robinson for Bargnani, Lucas) was true. Considering they wanted to get under the cap, it's possible the proposed trade was heavily in Chicago's favour financially.

                          My fear is that Boozer's solid performance might make Chicago change their mind about trading him.
                          Attitude Is A Choice.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Blacklash2k4 wrote: View Post
                            Can someone explain to me exactly why did BC not take the Bargnani and Lucas for Boozer and Robinson trade, run and never look back? Just curious after watching the Brooklyn/Bulls game where Boozer had 29 points and 18 rebounds and Robinson hit the game winning shot along with 12 points and 5 assists.
                            What evidence do you have that this was even on the table?
                            Welp, that sucked.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              c_bcm wrote: View Post
                              What evidence do you have that this was even on the table?
                              I'm shocked you ask...it was the closest to verified rumour out there, at least that I remember.

                              http://www.cbssports.com/nba/blog/ey...ever-they-want

                              It was definitely coming from Chicago's end, but for people who wanted it to happen, that's all the more frustrating I think, since the ball was in BC's court.

                              *And I believe the leak is real, because the timing of it smacked of Chicago's management trying to put public pressure on BC to take it.
                              Last edited by white men can't jump; Sat Apr 6, 2013, 10:17 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X