Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rebuild or Re-tool? (thread merge in post #358)

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

  • #16
    Fully wrote: View Post
    Even the most steadfast supporters of this current Raptors team seem to admit that they're capped at a 6-8 seed for the next two seasons, and that's assuming a bunch of things go their way. The playoffs are far from a guarantee next season and yet the Raptors have no first round pick, are pushed to the luxury tax, and have very little in terms of moveable assets to upgrade the team via trade. Simply put, they are constructed as a "win now" team... minus the winning part.

    Rather than waiting two seasons of average results to elapse, and then beginning a rebuild, I would fully support tearing this thing down immediately if I thought a capable basketball mind was behind the process. The benefits of doing it now instead of waiting would be: you get to take advantage of a couple of great drafts in 2014/15, and you don't waste any of the prime or near-prime of JV in a couple years time.

    Here's my plan. Let's go tanking!

    Raptors trade Andrea Bargnani and the Sacramento Kings 2014 2nd round pick to the Charlotte Bobcats for Ben Gordon.
    Both players are stealing money at this point, but the Bobcats pick up a draft pick that is likely to be in the 30's for taking on another year of bad contract. From their perspective, they rid themselves of the Gordon headache and don't really lose anything basketball wise since they're actively trying to suck anyway.

    Raptors trade Rudy Gay & Linus Kleiza to the Los Angeles Lakers for Pau Gasol, who is immediately waived by the Raptors
    Gasol would have helped the Raptors win games next season, and we don't want that. We have however carved out a $20 million dollar chunk of cap space for the summer of 2014 with this move though. The Lakers get pretty good value back for Pau as Gay can perform a poor man's Kobe Bryant impression while he battles back. They can also sell the move to Dwight as proof that they are still aiming to compete right now.

    Raptors trade DeRozan to Minnesota for Brandon Roy & Luke Ridnour
    Raps get the corpse of Brandon Roy (and his expiring deal) and the definition of a stop gap point guard that is also expiring in the summer of 2014. T-Wolves get a starting shooting guard at the cost of cap flexibility exclusively.

    Raptors trade Kyle Lowry to the Milwaukee Bucks for their 2014 1st round pick (top 7 protected)
    Rather than losing Lowry in free agency next summer, or being strong-armed into extending him for a big pricetag when few seem to be completely sold on the guy, the Raps pick up another first rounder in a loaded draft.

    2013-14 Roster:
    Ridnour
    Ross
    Fields
    A. Johnson
    JV

    Bench:
    Gordon
    Acy
    JL3
    Gray
    Anderson (Re-signed to a 2-year/ $4 million dollar contract this summer)
    Random high-character veteran making peanuts A
    Random high-character veteran making peanuts B

    Throw JV/Ross/Acy out there as much as possible and get the lumps out of the way. We've also maintained two high character guys in Johnson & Fields who should be able to provide some perspective throughout all the losing. We also suck, which is the whole point.

    2014 expiring contracts:
    Gasol ($20 million)
    Roy ($5 million)
    Ridnour ($4 million)
    Gordon ($12 million)
    Lucas ($2 million)
    Gray ($2 million)

    Next summer we go into the draft with our own pick (good chance to be top 5 with this roster), the Bucks pick (let's say it's in the 10-18 range), and over $40 million dollars of cap room. Stink the place out for one more season and add another top prospect in 2015 and all of a sudden we have a very good young core with a glut of cap space.
    Tenforthewin 2.0!

    Comment


    • #17
      Hahah, I should have prefaced it by saying that I was just trying to have some fun.

      However I gotta say that I think anyone who expects this team to magically transform into a contender in two seasons is delusional as well. You can check my track record here... I said Colangelo should be gone before his last extension, gave up on Bargnani and said it was foolish to build around him three years ago, said the Rudy Gay trade was a bad idea based out of BC's panic to save his job, I was even mocked and called names two weeks ago here when I said that there was no way Phil Jackson was coming to Toronto.

      It seems like everyone seems to end up in the same place as me, just after the fact... Do I expect it to happen with the "Surge on with the current core vs. tear it down" debate? Yes, I do.
      Last edited by Fully; Tue May 14th, 2013, 11:50 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Fully wrote: View Post
        Next summer we go into the draft with our own pick (good chance to be top 5 with this roster), the Bucks pick (let's say it's in the 10-18 range), and $40 million dollars of cap room. Stink the place out for one more season and add another top prospect in 2015 and all of a sudden we have a very good young core with a glut of cap space.
        The problem with this logic is that there's no guarantee that the new core will be any better than the current core. Plus, Toronto has never been effective with their cap space, mainly driven by their inability to lure top free agents. Blatant tanking and being extremely bad will only further hurt the team's reputation/perception among free agents and player agents.

        Comment


        • #19
          I personally think there'a a significant 'gray area' to be explored between the 'black' (keep current team as is) and 'white' (rebuild from scratch, keeping only Valanciunas to build with) options that a thread like this presents. I don't know whether BC is the right guy to lead this sort of retooling, since a lot of it would entail treating his prized possessions (ie: Bargnani & DeRozan) as trade assets.

          1. trade DeRozan (could include Bargnani and/or draft picks) for young (28 or younger), upgraded starting PF

          2. trade Bargnani (if not included in #1) for anything positive (even a shorter equally bad contract)

          3. amnesty Kleiza

          4. let Pietrus, Telfair and Anderson leave as free agents (ideal asset management would be to somehow pickup a 2nd round pick for Anderson via S&T)

          5. bring back Gray (player option) and Lucas (team option), as 3rd string depth players

          6. use MLE to sign veteran player (backup SF or backup PG), depending on need after trade(s)

          7. sign a couple veteran players to round out roster, if needed after trade(s)/MLE signing


          STARTERS
          C: Valanciunas
          PF: new PF from #1
          SF: Gay
          SG: Fields
          PG: Lowry

          PRIMARY 2ND UNIT PLAYERS
          C/PF: Johnson
          SF: new SF from #1/#2/#6
          SG: Ross
          PG: new PG from #1/#2/#6

          BENCH
          C: Gray
          PF: Acy
          PG: Lucas


          I think this sort of retooling could greatly improve the team immediately, in a way that is sustainable (good young core), without having to tank or mortgage the future by taking on horrendous contracts.

          Even if the retooling doesn't achieve the intended results, the Raptors would still be in a good position after the 2013-2014 season:

          - Lowry's $6.2M contract will be expired; he could be re-signed if he shows improvement/consistency in 2013-2014, could leave as free agent to clear cap space, or be used as asset for S&T deal

          - Bargnani (or player traded for) will either be roughly $10M (depending on salary coming back) coming off the books, or an expiring contract to use as trade chip

          - Gay will be $19.3M expiring contract, either to re-sign for better value deal or use as trade chip

          - Fields will be $6.25M ($8.5M cash for new team, but only $6.25M cap hit) expiring contract, either to re-sign for better value deal or use as trade chip

          - Johnson will be expired, with a $7M team option for 2014-2015, giving the team another expiring contract to potentially use as trade chip

          - Gray and Lucas will be expired contracts to leave as free agents, clearing $4.2M salary off the books

          - only Valanciunas ($4.7M), Ross ($3.6M) and Acy ($1.2M) will be signed beyond 2014-2015 and all of them are team options (players traded for, signed as free agents or extended to better value deals in the above scenario would be added to this list)

          - Toronto will have all future 1st round picks, starting in loaded 2014 draft (would change if any future 1st round picks were included in trades mentioned in the above scenario)
          Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Tue May 14th, 2013, 11:57 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            Blowing it up would be an option before the trade deadline if things go really bad but at that point you might not be getting anything near fair value on your assets and you are likely in the position you are because said assets are not performing up to potential.
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            It needs to be addressed but how do you address it when your trade chips are one of DeRozan/Ross and Bargnani?
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            Casey should coach to his strengths and hand the offensive reigns over to someone else.
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            22ft jump shot after jump shot is bush league.... It appears to me that Casey has been inflexible in working with the talent in Toronto. It is on him to maximize his talent. ISO and 22ft jump shots are not cutting it nor is bottom third defence.
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            The luck the Raptors need to be anything more than an 8th seed is guys overachieving, a major coup in a trade, and finding absolute bargains on minimum contracts (Jimmy Butler/productive young players on rookie deals, Danny Green type contracts, Chandler Parsons type contracts - imagine a healthy Fields with a 3 point shot making $2M - that is what I refer to). With so much money tied up in inefficient players (Gay, DeRozan, Bargnani), the Raptors need a real homerun or two from the bargain bin.
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            - DD and Gay co-exist with both developing a consistent 3 point shot,
            - Fields regains his 3pt stroke,
            - Lowry returns to Houston form,
            - JV is on the track to all star status,
            - Bargnani finally puts it all together as he showed possible for about 18 games in 2011-12,
            - Acy becomes a solid rotational player,
            - veteran backup PG obtained,
            - Ross becomes the 3 and D 6th man of the year candidate,
            - Casey is able to return to his defensive, grind it out ways while implementing an offensive that does not rely predominantly on set shots.
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            - Turn one of DeRozan/Ross and Bargnani in to a starting PF
            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            - Use MLE to get a backup PG
            Definitely plausible; not getting us beyond the 7-8 range, best case scenario.

            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            - Find a bargain on a minimum contract who can contribute
            Not happening without a second rounder

            Matt52 wrote: View Post
            - Fields getting his shot back
            - Casey getting back to what he does best (defense) and changing the offense to incorporate more ball/player movement.

            Comment


            • #21
              I'm not a tanking fan, but even if you're tanking, the goal is to acquire long-term assets at the same time. This tank plan acquires exactly one long-term asset that we didn't already have (the Milwaukee pick), and improves one we already have (our own first-rounder). Plus, we give up a second rounder? Now, 2014 lottery picks are going to be difficult to acquire (I think even Milwaukee would want better protection than top 7... probably top 12 or even top 15). $40 million of cap space is going to be useless in attracting any free agents to such a brutal team, unless we're prepared to overpay. It's going to take a couple years of winning with our young guys before any star players would consider signing here for market value. We're also left with next to no salary to use in any sign-and-trade scenario.

              If we're trading Gay and Kleiza for Gasol and then immediately waiving Gasol, why wouldn't we just waive Gay? And since we could always just amnesty Kleiza anyway, this means we're giving away Gay for exactly zero assets going forward. Do you really think that's the best use of Gay's contract? Heck, at least grab Morris from the Lakers.
              And I don't understand trying to get rid of Kleiza (who's really a negative trade asset), and yet bringing in Roy, who's a pretty-much identical asset. Also, I believe that the Wolves already waived Roy a couple days ago.
              Also, you could simply keep Bargnani over Gordon (who probably helps us lose just as much), amnesty Bargnani next summer, and not give up a second round pick in the process.
              And Lowry and DeRozan. These are valuable assets... at least trade them for filler plus prospects who won't win right now, but might turn into something a few years down the line.

              However, I will give you credit that the lineup you proposed is definitely worthy of a top 5 pick. Resigning Anderson is a nice touch. For what it's worth, I think I'd probably watch less than a dozen games if that was our lineup next year. Can't see the media conglomerate owners committing the ratings suicide that would be involved in this.

              Comment


              • #22
                NoBan wrote: View Post
                Similar to everyone else, I too liked your post. But I don’t think you can legitimately believe that we’re likely to make a contender out of the current core. If you, me, Lieweke, whomever are truly focused on brining the Raps to the finals, the blow it up option is the most realistic path to get there.
                I would argue that history is against your claim. If you look back at the NBA finals over the past 13 years (2000-2012), building through the draft has only been successful when the team lucked into an absolute superstar, when reaching the finals is the goal.

                2012 - Miami (superteam) VS OKC (Durant + 2 other top-4 picks)
                2011 - Dallas (Dirk & vets) VS Miami (superteam)
                2010 - Lakers (superteam) VS Boston (superteam)
                2009 - Lakers (superteam) VS Orlando (Howard)
                2008 - Boston (superteam) VS Lakers (superteam)
                2007 - Spurs (Duncan & 2 great picks) VS Cleveland (LBJ)
                2006 - Miami (superteam) VS Dallas (Dirk)
                2005 - Spurs (Duncan & 2 great picks) VS Detroit (solid team, not all via draft)
                2004 - Detroit (solid team, not all via draft) VS Lakers (superteam)
                2003 - Spurs (Duncan & 2 great picks) VS Nets (solid team, not all via draft)
                2002 - Lakers (superteam) VS Nets (solid team, not all via draft)
                2001 - Lakers (superteam) VS Philly (Iverson)
                2000 - Lakers (superteam) VS Indi (Miller)

                Unless you luck into a superstar, building through the draft alone is hardly a proven recipe for sustainable, championship-caliber success. If you look at the 65 top-5 picks over the past 13 years, I would be willing to bet that there are far more "busts" than there are superstars, which is why I don't fully understand the desire to put all your faith/hope in a few draft picks.

                First, there's no guarantee the Raptors will even wind up with top-5 picks. Second, there's no guarantee that the Raptors' picks (even if in top-5) will wind up being great players, let alone superstars to build a contending team around. Third, there's not even a guarantee that the new core that's built through the next few drafts will be any better than the current core that has been built through multiple draft lotteries (Bargnani-06, DeRozan-09, Gay via Davis-10, Valanciunas-11, Ross-12).
                Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Tue May 14th, 2013, 12:28 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                  I would argue that history is against your claim. If you look back at the NBA finals over the past 13 years (2000-2012), building through the draft has only been successful when the team lucked into an absolute superstar, when reaching the finals is the goal.

                  2012 - Miami (superteam) VS OKC (Durant + 2 other top-4 picks)
                  2011 - Dallas (Dirk & vets) VS Miami (superteam)
                  2010 - Lakers (superteam) VS Boston (superteam)
                  2009 - Lakers (superteam) VS Orlando (Howard)
                  2008 - Boston (superteam) VS Lakers (superteam)
                  2007 - Spurs (Duncan & 2 great picks) VS Cleveland (LBJ)
                  2006 - Miami (superteam) VS Dallas (Dirk)
                  2005 - Spurs (Duncan & 2 great picks) VS Detroit (solid team, not all via draft)
                  2004 - Detroit (solid team, not all via draft) VS Lakers (superteam)
                  2003 - Spurs (Duncan & 2 great picks) VS Nets (solid team, not all via draft)
                  2002 - Lakers (superteam) VS Nets (solid team, not all via draft)
                  2001 - Lakers (superteam) VS Philly (Iverson)
                  2000 - Lakers (superteam) VS Indi (Miller)
                  OKC, Cleveland, Boston, Orlando, Dallas, and even San Antonio got the key pieces to their championship contenders by being terrible prior to their runs. Once they landed their stars (Durant, Lebron, Garnett, Howard, Dirk, Duncan), they were able to assemble contenders. Only Dirk in Dallas was not acquired with a top 5 pick, 4 of those guys were 1st overall picks. It seems like you've made my point for me here.

                  The superteam option is not on the table for us. We're not signing Shaq or LBJ away from a rival.

                  The Nets/Pistons model is not totally off the table. But we don't have the pieces to mirror either team's strategy. We have zero all stars, they had 3 or 4. We are A LOT closer to getting a great lotto pick than making the finals with the "solid team, not all via draft" model.

                  CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                  Unless you luck into a superstar, building through the draft alone is hardly a proven recipe for sustainable, championship-caliber success. If you look at the 65 top-5 picks over the past 13 years, I would be willing to bet that there are far more "busts" than there are superstars, which is why I don't fully understand the desire to put all your faith/hope in a few draft picks.
                  The desire to rebuild through a bottoming out/drafting strategy is to avoid a repeat of the last 5 seasons. Nobody in Cleveland or Orlando's management team wanted to be a bottom feeder, but they knew they had to do it to get back to relevancy. Now the Cavs have Kyrie and the Magic are going to get a stud, too. That should be us. Instead we're paying Rudy Gay 350% of the GDP of Prince Edward Island.

                  CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                  First, there's no guarantee the Raptors will even wind up with top-5 picks. Second, there's no guarantee that the Rators' picks (even if in top-5) will wind up being great players, let alone superstars to build a contending team around
                  But what is guaranteed is continued futility with the current core & strategy. Why not choose the option more likely to deliver something close to one of the superstars that appears on your list on contenders?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                    The problem with this logic is that there's no guarantee that the new core will be any better than the current core. Plus, Toronto has never been effective with their cap space, mainly driven by their inability to lure top free agents. Blatant tanking and being extremely bad will only further hurt the team's reputation/perception among free agents and player agents.
                    This seems to be the same logic that says keeping Colangelo is a good idea because his replacement may be even worse. No, there's not a guarantee of future success with the "get bad to get good" model, but there isn't a guarantee of anything in sports, which includes this current version of the Raptors as well. At least with my scenario, the ceiling is much higher, the financial flexibility is there and the team will have countless more options moving forward opposed to the present roster construction.

                    As to your second point, do you really think free agents will be lining up to play with DeRozan & Gay? Even if you did think that would happen - which I would vehemently disagree with - the team has next to 0 resources to make it happen.

                    "We're better off with no cap space because we wouldn't be able to use it properly anyway" sounds like a Colangelo line. Something along the lines of "We're better off without a first round pick this summer because we won't need to integrate another rookie!"

                    Cap space doesn't necessarily need to mean that you're out signing max contract guys every summer, nor would I expect that to happen with the Raptors. It simply gives you more options. You can absorb bad salaries as part of the rebuild over the next two years - something OKC did well and the Magic and Cavs have done recently - and pick up assets in the process. You can sign players that fit around your young stars, not necessarily stars themselves.

                    All in all it gives you flexibility moving forward, something that I think every team should try to protect until they are sure that they have the correct pieces in place to become a contender.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      You have cherry picked my post with the selective quotations. The context of my quotes are lost and you've taken a discussion and turned it in to an argument. Perfect example is the list of what would have to go perfectly for the Raptors to compete - which I made clear.

                      I don't think this is as black and white as you make it out to be. With new leadership I would not be opposed to tearing it down but there is more than one option. However, once you get in the playoffs with a good team (not an 8th seed), anything can happen. I think the Raptors can be a good team with a little tinkering - not the current core.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        . However, once you get in the playoffs with a good team (not an 8th seed), anything can happen. I think the Raptors can be a good team with a little tinkering - not the current core.
                        Is this actually true? It's accurate in the other three major sports but how many championships or (even finals appearances) have been captured in the last 25 years by teams coming from the bottom half of the playoff seedings?

                        I haven't looked at it closely but I bet you can count on one hand the number of times a seed higher than 4 made it to the Finals in the last 25 years, from either Conference.

                        Edit: I just looked it up. In the past 25 years of playoff basketball in the NBA, only two teams have made the Finals with a seed higher than 4. The Rockets won it as a sixth seed in 1995 and the Knicks made it to the Finals during the lockout shortened season as an 8th seed. Even if you widen the criteria to include #4 seeds who make it all the way to the finals, the list only grows by a couple more teams.
                        Last edited by Fully; Tue May 14th, 2013, 01:28 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Matt52 wrote: View Post
                          You have cherry picked my post with the selective quotations. The context of my quotes are lost and you've taken a discussion and turned it in to an argument. Perfect example is the list of what would have to go perfectly for the Raptors to compete - which I made clear.

                          I don't think this is as black and white as you make it out to be. With new leadership I would not be opposed to tearing it down but there is more than one option. However, once you get in the playoffs with a good team (not an 8th seed), anything can happen. I think the Raptors can be a good team with a little tinkering - not the current core.
                          Whoa, big fella. I didnt want to copy paste everything. The context of your stuff exists only a single mouse scroll above.

                          I understand you realized how unlikely your best case scenario was. I felt it necessary to reiterate it as nearly impossible and virtually irrelevant to our discussion of the future of the franchise.

                          My points about Casey & the unlikihood of a Demar/Andrea combo fetching a contributor stand. As does my point about there being no benefit in waitng til the deadline to enact a true rebuilding strategy. As does my point that we are extremely unlikely to hit a homerun with a bargain contract without a second round pick. None of those points are invalidated by any "cherrypicking".

                          There's been plenty of black/white/grey talk here. My question is, why do you want to live in the grey? The grey is where we've been under Colangelo and Babcock before him. The grey got us into our current situation, which you've correctly identified as unacceptable.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Blowing it up after coming this far is neither sensible nor viable. Yes some of BC's moves have been questionable and could have been done differently, but the result of the process of rebuilding is one year away and Raps. should simply stay the course. In fact BC's option year should have been picked up already and I hope the ONLY reason for the delay is the Leafs play off series.
                            Attitude Is A Choice.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Eric Akshinthala wrote: View Post
                              Blowing it up after coming this far is neither sensible nor viable. Yes some of BC's moves have been questionable and could have been done differently, but the result of the process of rebuilding is one year away and Raps. should simply stay the course. In fact BC's option year should have been picked up already and I hope the ONLY reason for the delay is the Leafs play off series.
                              It doesn't make much sense why the Leafs would cause a delay in Colangelo's decision.

                              "Can't...conduct...businesss. Watching...hockey"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                NoBan wrote: View Post
                                There's been plenty of black/white/grey talk here. My question is, why do you want to live in the grey? The grey is where we've been under Colangelo and Babcock before him. The grey got us into our current situation, which you've correctly identified as unacceptable.
                                I don't see many people choosing to continue 'as is', without at least some retooling. You're the one who seems to keep arguing that the only options are to 'blow it up' or 'stay as is'. If you look at my post (#20), I'm hardly arguing to keep the status quo, I just don't think there's reason to go to the extreme to 'blow it up' this offseason.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X