Koreen: Should the Raptors move DD?

[Masai Ujiri]

It's interesting that "cheap" and "club-friendly contract" has now become part of the pro-Derozan meme. His rookie contract was cheap and club-friendly. Since he doesn't do much to help the club win games -- look at the Raps' record during his stint in Toronto -- his value is essentially nothing more than a vet minimum or replacement-level contract.

He's not a franchise/superstar player, hence the Raps not being that great with him as the #1 guy. He's better suited as a #2 or #3, but that's not a minimum salary caliber player...

But to suggest that he is worth the vet minimum is asinine... asiten, asieleven, asitwelve. That doesn't even make sense.

Do you even know how the NBA market works? You can't just arbitrarily assign monetary values to players because you don't like them.

[stooley]

That's what Bryan Colangelo did, in giving Derozan his extension, when he bid against himself for Derozan's services.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...s/players.html

Look at where Derozan falls in this list. Doesn't seem all that egregious to me for a guy with good character and is committed to improving his game. (and is still only 24).

[Axel]

That's what Bryan Colangelo did, in giving Derozan his extension, when he bid against himself for Derozan's services.

Derozan's extension was set by the market. BC set the market when he paid for Landry Fields at $6M. Can anyone honestly say that Demar was only worth $500k or $1M more than Landry?

Either way, it's all BC's fault

[KeonClark]

Derozan's extension was set by the market. BC set the market when he paid for Landry Fields at $6M. Can anyone honestly say that Demar was only worth $500k or $1M more than Landry?

Either way, it's all BC's fault

Did Colangelo knock down the twin towers on 9/11 too?

[S.R.]

That's what Bryan Colangelo did, in giving Derozan his extension, when he bid against himself for Derozan's services.

Even if DeRozan only continues to shoot 3's at 35% or better, he'll be well worth his contract. He's still 24 and still developing. His contract is locked in at a flat rate - it's going to be a good deal for the team in the final couple years. The "he's not worth that much" narrative is about 2 years behind the times, imho.

[mcHAPPY]

Even if DeRozan only continues to shoot 3's at 35% or better, he'll be well worth his contract. He's still 24 and still developing. His contract is locked in at a flat rate - it's going to be a good deal for the team in the final couple years. The "he's not worth that much" narrative is about 2 years behind the times, imho.

He might be worth $9.5M on offense but he is about minimum contract on D.

That comes out to a solid $5.4M (50% + 50% divided by 2).

[stooley]

Even if DeRozan only continues to shoot 3's at 35% or better, he'll be well worth his contract. He's still 24 and still developing. His contract is locked in at a flat rate - it's going to be a good deal for the team in the final couple years. The "he's not worth that much" narrative is about 2 years behind the times, imho.

Look at similarly priced players at a the same point in their careers. I completely agree with you, even if he remains a one dimensional player.

[magoon]

We were all talking about Milwaukee at the start of the season because they were in win-now mode, but we can't keep assigning the same variables.

Milwaukee now isn't Milwaukee circa Halloween. They'd be idiots to move Giannis because it's obvious Giannis has a decent chance of being a star player eventually (and when he has a hot night he's a potential gamewinner right now). They'd be idiots to move their first-round pick when right now they are tied for being the worst team in the league (after playing what was easily the easiest part of their schedule), half their team including their biggest star is injured, and they need to spend the rest of the season playing .580 ball just to break even on the season; there is a better-than-average chance that their pick next year is a superstar-level pick and they have to know that. And on top of that their fans just raised a lot of money to put up a billboard saying "look, we get it, you can tank this year, we're cool with it."

In October a Milwaukee trade was potentially a thing. Heck, halfway through November, when they were 2-7 but their losses included Miami, Indiana, OKC and Dallas, it might have still been a thing then. But unless the Bucks are being run by a drooling idiot, it's not a thing now.

[stooley]

He might be worth $9.5M on offense but he is about minimum contract on D.

That comes out to a solid $5.4M (50% + 50% divided by 2).

I'm gonna post this again, because noones acknowledged it: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...s/players.html

Derozan's contract doesn't seem out of place there compared to other guys his age.

[S.R.]

He might be worth $9.5M on offense but he is about minimum contract on D.

That comes out to a solid $5.4M (50% + 50% divided by 2).

Ha, I like that math.

Can we also cut Casey's contract in half? He only coaches at one end of the floor.

[JawsGT]

He might be worth $9.5M on offense but he is about minimum contract on D.

That comes out to a solid $5.4M (50% + 50% divided by 2).

C'mon, you know he is worth more than that. I don't believe you believe that.

[stooley]

Haha, Nilanka, you reading this?

3 items on the list: good character, committed to improving his game, only 24. You forgot loves Toronto, blah blah blah, lip service lip service.

Raps' record so far in Derozan's 320 career games: 120-200. Total combined win shares: 14.3. Michael Jordan's win shares as a 21-year-old rookie in 82 games: 14.0

The point is, if you don't make your team a winner, you are easily replaceable. No reason for a big contract.

The only argument I see here is that Derozan is bad because the teams he has played on are bad. This doesn't really make that much sense, and I'm sure you understand why. He's not paid like the type of player who carries a team to a playoff appearance. He's paid like a nice complementary piece on a good team, and that's what he is.

[mcHAPPY]

We were all talking about Milwaukee at the start of the season because they were in win-now mode, but we can't keep assigning the same variables.

Milwaukee now isn't Milwaukee circa Halloween. They'd be idiots to move Giannis because it's obvious Giannis has a decent chance of being a star player eventually (and when he has a hot night he's a potential gamewinner right now). They'd be idiots to move their first-round pick when right now they are tied for being the worst team in the league (after playing what was easily the easiest part of their schedule), half their team including their biggest star is injured, and they need to spend the rest of the season playing .580 ball just to break even on the season; there is a better-than-average chance that their pick next year is a superstar-level pick and they have to know that. And on top of that their fans just raised a lot of money to put up a billboard saying "look, we get it, you can tank this year, we're cool with it."

In October a Milwaukee trade was potentially a thing. Heck, halfway through November, when they were 2-7 but their losses included Miami, Indiana, OKC and Dallas, it might have still been a thing then. But unless the Bucks are being run by a drooling idiot, it's not a thing now.

I'm not sure that is true.

I don' think the owner is a drooling idiot. I think the owner cares about the value of his franchise in case he sells, building a new arena, and making money.

The reality is the Bucks have:
been without Sanders since the first game;
Butler has missed 4 games;
they started the first 9 games of the season with the 58th pick in the draft starting;
brand new coach;
Ilyasova has missed 7 games;
Deflino is gone for the year;
Middleton with 27 games experience before this season has started 9 games for them;
they have overall been competitive versus the Eastern conference riff raff.
they have a lot of young pieces.

You add Lowry and DeRozan and this is a playoff team in my opinion.

I guess it depends on your expectations from an ownership perspective.
Right now Bucks are only 3.5 games out of the playoffs.
If your goal is the playoffs, then that is not insurmountable even if guys get healthy.

From a Raptor perspective, they've sucked for years and continue to do so.
Ownership/management has said they want to be more than a playoff team.
Different circumstances.

[mcHAPPY]

I'm gonna post this again, because noones acknowledged it: http://www.basketball-reference.com/...s/players.html

Derozan's contract doesn't seem out of place there compared to other guys his age.

Link is just taking me to B-R.com mainpage.

Regardless, if DD can't lead a franchise, I'm not sure I want to be happy with my role players making what other guys make.

Great teams tend to have role players on value contracts.

[S.R.]

Haha, Nilanka, you reading this?

3 items on the list: good character, committed to improving his game, only 24. You forgot loves Toronto, blah blah blah, lip service lip service.

Raps' record so far in Derozan's 320 career games: 120-200. Total combined win shares: 14.3. Michael Jordan's win shares as a 21-year-old rookie in 82 games: 14.0

The point is, if you don't make your team a winner, you are easily replaceable. No reason for a big contract.

That's right, just like Pau Gasol who was 239-335 in Memphis from 2001-2008 as the number 1 guy. Not a winner, right? He was too soft, too Euro, not a franchise guy, not a leader, etc., etc. Oops, then he went to the Lakers and was the #2 guy on a championship team in 08/09. So much for oversimplifications in a team sport.