Axel wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Are We Still Blaming Colangelo??
Collapse
X
-
magoon wrote: View PostAgain: Landry's cap hit is 6.25 million, since you average out the three years of his contract; the contract was designed that way so he's a large expiring deal in his final year.Heir, Prince of Cambridge
If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.
Comment
-
Dino4life wrote: View PostYou always seem to pick that one insignificant detail and try to use that to discredit a point. Considering there is a league minimum, this was obviously an exaggeration. The point still stands, to prevent a sign and trade of Nash to the Knicks, all you needed was his signature, 6.5 Million a year for someone about to sit on the knicks bench wasn't necessary anyway you slice it.
Comment
-
p00ka wrote: View PostThe point is, you can pick whatever number you want, but if he doesn't sign it, the GM wastes his time and doesn't accomplish the goal, whether you agree with that goal or not.
Comment
-
Dino4life wrote: View PostYou're still missing the point, anything at fair value, he would have signed, the concept of overpaying is to dissuade the team to match, in the case of fields it wouldn't matter if they matched, in fact it would have been better for us to match. Or are you saying he wouldn't have signed anything under 6.5 million ? because unless that's what you're saying you are not saying anything at all, and are just arguing for the sake of arguying.
When you speak of "in fact it would have been better for us to match", there is no "fact" about it, just your opinion, aided by 20/20 hindsight it would seem. In any event, whether you agree with the goal or not, you assume that the only reason he was offered that deal was to dissuade NY from signing Nash. Unless you can get into BC's head, you have no idea whether or not he also saw Fields as an answer to filling the SF spot, which was a big need at that time. A very good argument could be made that BC was trying to kill two birds with one stone. As far as you're "Or are you saying he wouldn't have signed anything under 6.5 million", I have no idea, and neither do you, but the simple concept that was stated by LBF, and some people want to argue about (hmmmmm, for the sake of arguing?), is that almost without fail, a GM has to overpay to get a RFA, to which there is no argument. Who is arguing to argue?
Comment
-
p00ka wrote: View PostI don't know that it makes any sense at all to debate with someone that uses the lame "just arguing for the sake of arguying" deflection, but,................
When you speak of "in fact it would have been better for us to match", there is no "fact" about it, just your opinion, aided by 20/20 hindsight it would seem. In any event, whether you agree with the goal or not, you assume that the only reason he was offered that deal was to dissuade NY from signing Nash. Unless you can get into BC's head, you have no idea whether or not he also saw Fields as an answer to filling the SF spot, which was a big need at that time. A very good argument could be made that BC was trying to kill two birds with one stone. As far as you're "Or are you saying he wouldn't have signed anything under 6.5 million", I have no idea, and neither do you, but the simple concept that was stated by LBF, and some people want to argue about (hmmmmm, for the sake of arguing?), is that almost without fail, a GM has to overpay to get a RFA, to which there is no argument. Who is arguing to argue?
Here's a yahoo take from last year, when the offer sheet was first reported:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ba...5409--nba.html
At first blush, the deal seems wholly out of proportion with Fields' production through two years in the league, and especially ridiculous given the Stanford product's sophomore swoon on Broadway. After a surprisingly effective first NBA campaign that saw him go from second-round afterthought to New York's opening-night off-guard and, eventually, a first-team All-Rookie selection, Fields fell off something fierce in the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season.
All of Fields' shooting percentages declined in his second year in the league, including woeful marks of 25.6 percent from 3-point range and 56.2 percent from the foul line, along with his Player Efficiency Rating and rebound rates — most notably his defensive rebound rate, which was elite among guards and was a huge part of what made the 6-foot-7 Fields so valuable in the Knicks backcourt. He used more Knick possessions in his second year, but posted a lower per-minute scoring output and turned the ball over more frequently.
He wasn't any great shakes on the defensive end, either. Fields ranked 341st among NBA players in overall points allowed per play defended, according to Synergy Sports Technology's game charting. When you consider that more than 440 players saw NBA floor-time this season, that not all of them are counted (only guys with at least 25 plays charted appear in the rankings, per Synergy's FAQ) and that Fields played 2,009 total minutes this season (so it's not like he got burned repeatedly for one game and caught a bum stat line), that number looks really, really bad. That he ranked 185th in the NBA or worse in defending pick-and-roll ball-handlers, on post-ups, on spot-ups and in isolation doesn't help matters. (In fairness, we must note that he posted a top-100 finish in defending plays off screens, coming in at 96th overall.)
OK, so we've got a shooting guard who can't shoot, a rebounding wing whose rebounding fell off, a perimeter defender who's not a very good defender and a second-year pro whom most Knicks fans were willing, if not eager, to let walk after the team's first-round playoff exit. (This is, of course, a drastic oversimplification, but it's also about the size of how Landry Fields looks to the world.) And yet now he's getting offered better than $6.5 million a year to play the wing for a team that starts DeMar DeRozan and just drafted Terrence Ross? Are the Raptors stupid?Heir, Prince of Cambridge
If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.
Comment
-
Axel wrote: View PostBC overpaid beyond what was necessary. New York would have been hard pressed to match $4M, which would still have been over-paying for player that has production/potential in the $2M-$3M range. There is overpaying, and then there is BC.
Here's a yahoo take from last year, when the offer sheet was first reported:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ba...5409--nba.html
At first blush, the deal seems wholly out of proportion with Fields' production through two years in the league, and especially ridiculous given the Stanford product's sophomore swoon on Broadway. After a surprisingly effective first NBA campaign that saw him go from second-round afterthought to New York's opening-night off-guard and, eventually, a first-team All-Rookie selection, Fields fell off something fierce in the lockout-shortened 2011-12 season.
All of Fields' shooting percentages declined in his second year in the league, including woeful marks of 25.6 percent from 3-point range and 56.2 percent from the foul line, along with his Player Efficiency Rating and rebound rates — most notably his defensive rebound rate, which was elite among guards and was a huge part of what made the 6-foot-7 Fields so valuable in the Knicks backcourt. He used more Knick possessions in his second year, but posted a lower per-minute scoring output and turned the ball over more frequently.
He wasn't any great shakes on the defensive end, either. Fields ranked 341st among NBA players in overall points allowed per play defended, according to Synergy Sports Technology's game charting. When you consider that more than 440 players saw NBA floor-time this season, that not all of them are counted (only guys with at least 25 plays charted appear in the rankings, per Synergy's FAQ) and that Fields played 2,009 total minutes this season (so it's not like he got burned repeatedly for one game and caught a bum stat line), that number looks really, really bad. That he ranked 185th in the NBA or worse in defending pick-and-roll ball-handlers, on post-ups, on spot-ups and in isolation doesn't help matters. (In fairness, we must note that he posted a top-100 finish in defending plays off screens, coming in at 96th overall.)
OK, so we've got a shooting guard who can't shoot, a rebounding wing whose rebounding fell off, a perimeter defender who's not a very good defender and a second-year pro whom most Knicks fans were willing, if not eager, to let walk after the team's first-round playoff exit. (This is, of course, a drastic oversimplification, but it's also about the size of how Landry Fields looks to the world.) And yet now he's getting offered better than $6.5 million a year to play the wing for a team that starts DeMar DeRozan and just drafted Terrence Ross? Are the Raptors stupid?
That's what a few want to argue, but that's not what the intended topic of the discussion was. He overpaid. I agree. Let's move on.
Comment
-
LBF wrote: View PostYou have to overpay RFA or there's just no point..Craiger wrote: View PostNo you don't. You don't "have to" do anything.
From a point of simplicity the option to not sign a RFA (in this case Fields) is always there.
He in no way HAD TO overpay. He chose to because he felt in some way doing so Fields was worth it (whether it was to block a Nash deal in NY, or because he felt Fields as a player was worth it, or both).p00ka wrote: View PostYou're not addressing the point that was made. You refer to the choice to go after a RFA or not, but the post was saying that if you choose to go after a RFA, you have to overpay, or "there's just no point" (because the current team will match).
Comment
-
p00ka wrote: View Post"BC overpaid beyond what was necessary."
That's what a few want to argue, but that's not what the intended topic of the discussion was. He overpaid. I agree. Let's move on.Heir, Prince of Cambridge
If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.
Comment
-
Axel wrote: View PostIf you go back, you'll see that my comment that he's overpaid and LBF's response that you "have to over pay" for RFA's started the conversation; so while you want to choose your view of the conversation, it is very much about how much many Fields is being paid.
- LBF made a simple point (likely just doing his provoking convo thing).
- Craiger responded with a retort that altered the subject
- I responded pointing that out.
Enough already! You want to keep arguing about something I agreed with, and has been argued for a year, have at it with someone else, but please don't falsely represent what I've said.
Comment
-
Soft Euro wrote: View PostThe splendid arguments and excellent use of logic in your posts never seize to amaze me.If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
LBF wrote: View Post...Wow, I just really don't give a shit. I'd like to feel insulted. But, nah. Really, I could say something about your posts, but, tbh, I don't pay nearly enough attention to them. Like we're just here to have general discussions about the raptors, it's not discussing fucking quantum physics.
Comment
-
Soft Euro wrote: View PostI give a guy an honest compliment and he repays me like this?If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
When BC came in he made a few great moves, and Toronto looked good. Most GM's likely have a few gimme's in their back pocket. The true test is after a year or two, how you can operate and somehow still get GM's in other cities to comply with your wishes. New Super GM comes in now, makes a deal with a team he has a decent report with, maybe a few more...but what we will see him do later on.....time will tell.
Dealing in Toronto, in CANADA is not easy, it just isn't. You are against the grain here whether people like to admit it or not. People can criticize Colangelo all they like, it really doesn't mean much to me, they are basically under educated most of the time anyhow. He was a decent GM. Made a few great moves, made some bad ones too. I think you will observe the same in almost every other city.
Comment
-
Axel wrote: View PostIf you go back, you'll see that my comment that he's overpaid and LBF's response that you "have to over pay" for RFA's started the conversation; so while you want to choose your view of the conversation, it is very much about how much many Fields is being paid.
Dino4life wrote: View PostIn the case of Fields, he didn't have to. He could have signed him for 1$ and New york wouldn't have been able to use him in a sign and Trade.
p00ka wrote: View PostYou're not addressing the point that was made. You refer to the choice to go after a RFA or not, but the post was saying that if you choose to go after a RFA, you have to overpay, or "there's just no point" (because the current team will match).
Dino4life wrote: View PostYou always seem to pick that one insignificant detail and try to use that to discredit a point. Considering there is a league minimum, this was obviously an exaggeration. The point still stands, to prevent a sign and trade of Nash to the Knicks, all you needed was his signature, 6.5 Million a year for someone about to sit on the knicks bench wasn't necessary anyway you slice it.
Axel wrote: View PostYou don't have to pay $6.5M to a guy coming off a season where he shot 25.6% for the 3PT line and 56% from the Free Throw line.
If you are making this move to block the Steve Nash sign and trade, you don't need a specific amount to get it done, any amount would be sufficient. Based on Fields production, he was likely worth between $2M-$3M per season, so $4M would have been an acceptable 'over-pay', but $6.5M was just Colangelo-esque.
Craiger wrote: View PostI am and I did.
Colangelo chose to. Its that simple.If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
Comment