S.R. wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Raptors on the Rise?
Collapse
X
-
-
The Boeheim quote came from some internet source, that's what was relative to the whole situation. Cant remember where I found it. His word is not gospel of any sorts, but being in NYC coaching for 20 years, being part of the national program and being around ball period for so long entitles him to his opinion, and it is very well respected. Lord he can probably name 10 kids that were better than everyone mentioned but got involved in inner city crap and lost their way. I would say he is a good judge of talent and has seen it on all levels, hence he doesn't think there is a generational talent coming in, or 5-7 of them for that matter. But it didn't say there weren't good or very good players coming in either.
Comment
-
Beoheim doesn't think any of these kids are as good as the hype, I understand that. But he doesn't know the direction of each NBA franchise in the lotto hunt, he doesn't know their ownerships' intentions, and he isn't familiar with their franchise histories (all components that factor into the decision to "tank"). His opinion on tanking only covers the players involved. It doesn't cover the business side of it, making his seemingly "credible" opinion somewhat suspect.
Comment
-
golden wrote: View PostAnd not just future drafts either. You have to look at the future contract situations of current stars (e.g. Kevin Love) and players who might become stars who may be available via trade due to their team's cap situations (e.g. Harden, Bledsoe). Amassing a group of young players with upside, acquiring OTHER team's draft picks, retaining cap space, and then waiting opportunistically for stars to become available, while still remaining competitive is more like the Houston/Morey strategy. Phoenix seems to be following that.
At the same time, if a high lottery pick becomes available for some of the current players, then heck ya - let's go."We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard
Comment
-
I am not going to argue the business side of things. The business side of things is to get wiggins period, he brings the biggest upside with business, and basketball. All I am stating is the fire sale everything for a shot a 1-7 is crazy when we do just what MU is doing. Win and stockpile. And in terms of superstar were not getting a league leading scorer for sure to many headaches with those type players. He will select the most team orientated player. Just so happens the KID FROM CANADA wants to play here, and is the most unselfish of his kind for sure, every increasing our chances when teams know he will want to come here in the future regardless.
And to say Boeheim's opinion is suspect is blasphemy. He has coached in the ball mecca of the US for over 20 years, no need to drop all his accolades, but he has had a few good ones come through there over the years, he is a very good judge of character, and talent.
Comment
-
Re: "Raptors on the Rise"
What else is crazy is that this team is now the 7th seed, set for a 1st round matchup against Miami (booooooo). But, they're also only 1 win away from a first round matchup against the .500 Atlanta Hawks, and only a couple wins away from matching up against the likes of the Pistons or the Bobcats.
This is crazy. A couple wins in one direction and the team could have legitimate aspirations for the 2nd round (this year). A couple losses in the other direction and this team would be thinking about a top 5 pick in a phenomenal draft.
What a wacky season."We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard
Comment
-
Syracuse and Boeheim haven't played Parker, Wiggins, Randle, Embiid, or any of the other top prospects for this years draft yet. Maybe he's been scouring over their game tape, but that would seem like a poor use of time for a collegiate head coach who should be preparing for his actual opponents.
More than likely, this was an increasing old & cranky Boeheim taking an opportunity to knock the "one and done" crowd down a peg or two.
Also, check out his comments on Otto Porter and Dion Waiters to see how accurate he is with his NBA scouting reports.
Comment
-
p00ka wrote: View PostMy original comment about cap space suddenly being downplayed wasn't directed at only one post. I just don't have the time to dig up others that I was asked to. Just an observation, man. If you think that's wrong, so be it. It's not like I've never had poor judgement of what I see, so it's certainly possible I'm not seeing it clearly.
I'd re-read some of the discussion because it looks like you may have misunderstood the others that you claim did a sudden turn on the importance of cap space, much like you did with the specific contributor we talked about.Last edited by Fully; Mon Dec 16, 2013, 02:13 PM.
Comment
-
S.R. wrote: View PostI'm fine with this. I'm not in a rush to dump as many players as possible to try to guarantee a top 5 pick in this draft. A top 5 pick in this draft would be fantastic, but if DD and Amir continue to play as well as they have this year, these are some quality young pieces on the current roster in addition to TR and JV. There are ways to improve beyond this next draft. Just the flexibility created by the Gay trade is going to help quite a bit. Any returns on a Lowry trade will change the outlook even more.
At the same time, if a high lottery pick becomes available for some of the current players, then heck ya - let's go.
IMO, relying on a tanking strategy that advocates losing, immediately devalues your assets significantly with just a 'hope and prayer' that it all pays off with the so-called franchise player, who 'may' develop into that superstar, 3-5 years down the road. I'd say the trading strategy has a much better risk/reward profile than the tanking your franchise approach - of course, all predicated on the ability to: (1) recognize talent, (2) ability to create a perceived market for your assets, (3) negotiating ability. By all accounts, MU is very good at all of those skills, so I'm optimistic.
Comment
-
golden wrote: View PostAnd I think that's the potential middle ground for tankers vs. anti-tankers. Houston, Indy, Portland, Denver (Ujiri) and maybe Phoenix now, have shown that IT IS possible to remain competitive and at the same time you can collect valuable assets and develop undervalued players into stars - by consistently winning trades. The best thing about this strategy is that you can do it immediately for both short AND long-term gain. And a winning team also helps to pump up the asset value of your players.
IMO, relying on a tanking strategy that advocates losing, immediately devalues your assets significantly with just a 'hope and prayer' that it all pays off with the so-called franchise player, who 'may' develop into that superstar, 3-5 years down the road. I'd say the trading strategy has a much better risk/reward profile than the tanking your franchise approach - of course, all predicated on the ability to: (1) recognize talent, (2) ability to create a perceived market for your assets, (3) negotiating ability. By all accounts, MU is very good at all of those skills, so I'm optimistic.
Comment
-
golden wrote: View PostAnd I think that's the potential middle ground for tankers vs. anti-tankers. Houston, Indy, Portland, Denver (Ujiri) and maybe Phoenix now, have shown that IT IS possible to remain competitive and at the same time you can collect valuable assets and develop undervalued players into stars - by consistently winning trades.
1. Houston got extremely lucky because of the Harden trade, which is a non-duplicable event.
2. Indiana spent four years being pretty freaking terrible, during which time they acquired Roy Hibbert and drafted Paul George.
3. Portland went from tanking to competitive mode, and the reason it didn't work is because Brandon Roy and Greg Oden BOTH had major injury issues, and Portland spent years on the treadmill because of that. Only when they acquired Damian Lillard after a season where they tanked did Portland start to again become a factor. Basically they had to rebuild from their rebuild.
4. Denver was the definition of a treadmill team for years and still is until they make it to the second round of the playoffs, which they have not done since 1977.
5. Phoenix was undoubtedly planning to tank in the traditional style, trading away most of their assets and accumulating a wealth of picks, and then suddenly all of their young players and prospects that they acquired massively exceeded expectations across the board. Even their veterans on garbage contracts started playing good ball.
So, to sum up: you have two situations that are basically not duplicable (Houston and Phoenix), a treadmill team (Denver), and two teams that had to rebuild in the traditional sense (Indiana and Portland). This doesn't seem to bolster the anti-tank argument.
Comment
-
magoon wrote: View PostIn order:
1. Houston got extremely lucky because of the Harden trade, which is a non-duplicable event.
2. Indiana spent four years being pretty freaking terrible, during which time they acquired Roy Hibbert and drafted Paul George.
3. Portland went from tanking to competitive mode, and the reason it didn't work is because Brandon Roy and Greg Oden BOTH had major injury issues, and Portland spent years on the treadmill because of that. Only when they acquired Damian Lillard after a season where they tanked did Portland start to again become a factor. Basically they had to rebuild from their rebuild.
4. Denver was the definition of a treadmill team for years and still is until they make it to the second round of the playoffs, which they have not done since 1977.
5. Phoenix was undoubtedly planning to tank in the traditional style, trading away most of their assets and accumulating a wealth of picks, and then suddenly all of their young players and prospects that they acquired massively exceeded expectations across the board. Even their veterans on garbage contracts started playing good ball.
So, to sum up: you have two situations that are basically not duplicable (Houston and Phoenix), a treadmill team (Denver), and two teams that had to rebuild in the traditional sense (Indiana and Portland). This doesn't seem to bolster the anti-tank argument.
Bold 2. Another reason I fear tanking. If it doesn't work, you go back to the lottery again. If that first tank/rebuild doesn't work, you have another 2-3 years of sucking to look forward to. We've sucked for so long that there has to be a better way. Oh, and Darko Milicic, I fear him as well. One or two of these so-called franchise altering talent could and probably will be just like him.
Comment
-
magoon wrote: View PostIn order:
1. Houston got extremely lucky because of the Harden trade, which is a non-duplicable event.
2. Indiana spent four years being pretty freaking terrible, during which time they acquired Roy Hibbert and drafted Paul George.
07-08: (36-46) (Drafted Hibbert #17 with the Raptors pick)
08-09: (36-46) (Drafted Hansbrough #13)
09-10: (32-50) (Drafted George #10, Stephenson #40)
10-11: (37-45) (Made playoffs, traded draft pick for George Hill)
Where did they tank again?
3. Portland went from tanking to competitive mode, and the reason it didn't work is because Brandon Roy and Greg Oden BOTH had major injury issues, and Portland spent years on the treadmill because of that. Only when they acquired Damian Lillard after a season where they tanked did Portland start to again become a factor. Basically they had to rebuild from their rebuild.
4. Denver was the definition of a treadmill team for years and still is until they make it to the second round of the playoffs, which they have not done since 1977.
5. Phoenix was undoubtedly planning to tank in the traditional style, trading away most of their assets and accumulating a wealth of picks, and then suddenly all of their young players and prospects that they acquired massively exceeded expectations across the board. Even their veterans on garbage contracts started playing good ball.
So, to sum up: you have two situations that are basically not duplicable (Houston and Phoenix), a treadmill team (Denver), and two teams that had to rebuild in the traditional sense (Indiana and Portland). This doesn't seem to bolster the anti-tank argument.
Comment
-
magoon wrote: View Post1. Houston got extremely lucky because of the Harden trade, which is a non-duplicable event.Last edited by JimiCliff; Mon Dec 16, 2013, 03:28 PM."Stop eating your sushi."
"I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
"I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
- Jack Armstrong
Comment
-
JimiCliff wrote: View PostI gotta say: doesn't the Curry-Thompson-Barnes situation look like it could play out exactly like Durant-Harden-Westbrook?
Comment
Comment