Article: Ujiri Resting Heavily On Maintaining The Status Quo

[S.R.]

Why? He was already halfway down the road to blowing things up and had the support of the fans and presumably of management. Where's the risk there? If you've already put the tank in motion, trading Lowry was the next logical step.

To McHappy (and Wild-ling): Why not? I mean why bother speculating on anything Raptors-related then? Isn't that what we come here for, for articles that speculate on the team's win total with new personnel based on previous performance, on team fit with new players, on what might happen next offseason, etc? If you're only interested in waiting for results, why do we talk about sports at all other than to recap things? Where's the fun in that? Why can't we ask what a GM might or might not be willing to do to in order to bring the team a championship, just as we can a player or coach?

I mean of course we can't judge Ujiri's overall performance until that performance is complete, but that's not what Chisholm has done in the article. At no point does he state that Ujiri is set to fail, that he's risk-adverse or overly cautious, etc (in other words, at no point does he state that 'maintaining the status quo' has HURT the team) - he simply wonders if there's a pattern that indicates danger ahead. He's pointing out a potential hazard down the road that Ujiri might have trouble navigating, not saying that the driver is surely going to crash because he's a bad driver.

Anyway, this all comes down to whether or not you're willing to speculate about something or just want to wait to see how things pan out. I like to speculate and daydream, just like I have a weakness for arguing on the internet. I'll tone it down.

But he didn't trade Lowry. Don't you see what you've just done? If he had traded Lowry, then your interpretation is that blowing things up would have been the safe and obvious move. But he didn't trade Lowry, he kept the core together which apparently was also the safe and obvious move. Just like TC's article, every fact is interpreted to align with the point you want to make. The reason you're arguing against everybody (paraphrasing your words) is that most people here disagree with how you're interpreting the facts. Nobody is disagreeing with speculation, discussion, or controversy (if those three words don't summarize this forum, I don't know what does). But if both blowing up the team was safe and obvious and keeping the core together was also safe and obvious, you might need to reconsider your thought process there. I'm not a professional debater, but I'm pretty sure contrary statements like this are literally absurd.

If you're boiling the whole thing down to "MU needs to make a bigger move in the next couple of years than what he's done so far," I think pretty much the entire forum will agree with you and you'll find several threads are already dedicated to discussing the options (including max cap space and the biggest name FA's) unfolding for the next couple of seasons, which makes the final boiled down point a bit of a moot point in this context.

[golden]

I
So you're defending the guy based on a plan you HOPE is in place, and that you can't confirm?

Well, the discussion is now heading back into semantics circles again and it keeps coming down to this - nobody can confirm/deny what moves have been available to MU and you won't accept that "bold moves" have already been made and/or that a lot of what happens in the NBA comes down to sheer luck.

And @CalRaps, with respect to no-brainer moves. The premise of TC's article is that MU maintained status quo with what he inherited from BC. Trading Gay was definitely NOT on BC's agenda. In fact, there are rumours that Gay was set for big extension but that got vetoed by the MLSE board. BC was doing that BC thing, which is parading and trumpeting Gay as our new franchise face. Would BC have traded Rudy Gay, even if the Raps sucked. Based on the history with Bargnani - no freaking way he admits his mistake that quickly. He might have traded DD. Definitely not a no-brainer. Does BC even trade Bargs?

So, I guess we can just agree to disagree. Cheers.

[Axel]

But he didn't trade Lowry. Don't you see what you've just done? If he had traded Lowry, then your interpretation is that blowing things up would have been the safe and obvious move. But he didn't trade Lowry, he kept the core together which apparently was also the safe and obvious move. Just like TC's article, every fact is interpreted to align with the point you want to make. The reason you're arguing against everybody (paraphrasing your words) is that most people here disagree with how you're interpreting the facts. Nobody is disagreeing with speculation, discussion, or controversy (if those three words don't summarize this forum, I don't know what does). But if both blowing up the team was safe and obvious and keeping the core together was also safe and obvious, you might need to reconsider your thought process there. I'm not a professional debater, but I'm pretty sure contrary statements like this are literally absurd.

If you're boiling the whole thing down to "MU needs to make a bigger move in the next couple of years than what he's done so far," I think pretty much the entire forum will agree with you and you'll find several threads are already dedicated to discussing the options (including max cap space and the biggest name FA's) unfolding for the next couple of seasons, which makes the final boiled down point a bit of a moot point in this context.

This post wins. Well done.

[mcHAPPY]

Why? He was already halfway down the road to blowing things up and had the support of the fans and presumably of management. Where's the risk there? If you've already put the tank in motion, trading Lowry was the next logical step.

To McHappy (and Wild-ling): Why not? I mean why bother speculating on anything Raptors-related then? Isn't that what we come here for, for articles that speculate on the team's win total with new personnel based on previous performance, on team fit with new players, on what might happen next offseason, etc? If you're only interested in waiting for results, why do we talk about sports at all other than to recap things? Where's the fun in that? Why can't we ask what a GM might or might not be willing to do to in order to bring the team a championship, just as we can a player or coach?

I mean of course we can't judge Ujiri's overall performance until that performance is complete, but that's not what Chisholm has done in the article. At no point does he state that Ujiri is set to fail, that he's risk-adverse or overly cautious, etc (in other words, at no point does he state that 'maintaining the status quo' has HURT the team) - he simply wonders if there's a pattern that indicates danger ahead. He's pointing out a potential hazard down the road that Ujiri might have trouble navigating, not saying that the driver is surely going to crash because he's a bad driver.

Anyway, this all comes down to whether or not you're willing to speculate about something or just want to wait to see how things pan out. I like to speculate and daydream, just like I have a weakness for arguing on the internet. I'll tone it down.

Most things have a source or base in reality. Lowry nearly traded came from numerous sources. Raptors attempted to tank is essentially from Ujiri. Speculating wins are based on advanced stats of previous season of individual players.

There is nothing wrong with your questions. The problem is context and how they are displayed. Again, as you admitted, Tim C half-truthed the facts to put a questionable spin on his article.

The title alone is not based in any credible reality: Ujiri Resting Heavily on Maintaining Status Quo.

2 new starters?
6th man of year gone?
New back up PG?
New back up bigs?

That doesn't say status quo to me.

The topic is fine. Questioning Ujiri is hardly forbidden. The reality is it is a poorly written article that did not clearly articulate his ideas hence all the confusion and different interpretations, in my opinion. If you want to write a speculative piece, great, fantastic, but don't spin half truths to meet your story and then have such a huge disconnect between what your title states and what the article, in particular the last sentence, suggests.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

And @CalRaps, with respect to no-brainer moves. The premise of TC's article is that MU maintained status quo with what he inherited from BC. Trading Gay was definitely NOT on BC's agenda. In fact, there are rumours that Gay was set for big extension but that got vetoed by the MLSE board. BC was doing that BC thing, which is parading and trumpeting Gay as our new franchise face. Would BC have traded Rudy Gay, even if the Raps sucked. Based on the history with Bargnani - no freaking way he admits his mistake that quickly. He might have traded DD. Definitely not a no-brainer. Does BC even trade Bargs?

I was absolutely talking about MU's actions during his reign as GM, not comparing to BC's. I don't know how anybody could argue that status quo has been continued from BC to MU - that's utter nonsense.

- Gay & Bargnani were cornerstones of BC's team --> both traded for future assets

- Lowry was a cornerstone of BC's team --> attempted to be traded for future assets

- DeRozan was a cornerstone of BC's team --> who knows what would have happened if the Lowry trade had gone through, or what will happen next offseason

- Amir was the 3rd big on BC's team --> let walk

- BC had a tendency to trade picks --> MU has acquired extra 1st round picks in 2016 & 2017

- BC burdened the roster with dead weight from trades --> MU let deadweight expire and walk

- BC preferred to round out the roster with swing-for-the-fences old vets --> MU prefers to stack each position with cheap, young prospects filling the 3rd string

- BC's Raptors were constantly involved in rumors, while MU's Raptors play everything close to the vest

- BC had a new knee-jerk reaction plan every season, whereas MU seems to be following a more methodical multi-year plan for team building


I have no idea how a GM could be so dissimilar to his predecessor, yet be accused of maintaining the status quo from the previous regime!

[golden]

I was absolutely talking about MU's actions during his reign as GM, not comparing to BC's. I don't know how anybody could argue that status quo has been continued from BC to MU - that's utter nonsense.

- Gay & Bargnani were cornerstones of BC's team --> both traded for future assets

- Lowry was a cornerstone of BC's team --> attempted to be traded for future assets

- DeRozan was a cornerstone of BC's team --> who knows what would have happened if the Lowry trade had gone through, or what will happen next offseason

- Amir was the 3rd big on BC's team --> let walk

- BC had a tendency to trade picks --> MU has acquired extra 1st round picks in 2016 & 2017

- BC burdened the roster with dead weight from trades --> MU let deadweight expire and walk

- BC preferred to round out the roster with swing-for-the-fences old vets --> MU prefers to stack each position with cheap, young prospects filling the 3rd string

- BC's Raptors were constantly involved in rumors, while MU's Raptors play everything close to the vest

- BC had a new knee-jerk reaction plan every season, whereas MU seems to be following a more methodical multi-year plan for team building


I have no idea how a GM could be so dissimilar to his predecessor, yet be accused of maintaining the status quo from the previous regime!

Ok, my bad. We're in violent agreement, which is kind of boring. lol.

[mcHAPPY]

It seems DD and Casey have become the focal points of all debates with regards to the future of the franchise.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

It seems DD and Casey have become the focal points of all debates with regards to the future of the franchise.

They definitely seem to be hitched to BC's wagon. It's funny that Lowry (attempted to be traded, then resigned at great value deal?), Valanciunas (too positive an outlook?) and Ross (nobody cares?) seem to get a free pass.

[mcHAPPY]

They definitely seem to be hitched to BC's wagon. It's funny that Lowry (attempted to be traded, then resigned at great value deal?), Valanciunas (too positive an outlook?) and Ross (nobody cares?) seem to get a free pass.

Lowry and JV produce wins unlike most of BCs 'treasures' (Gay, Bargnani, DeRozan).

I agree few care about Ross anymore. Hopefully he makes people take notice next year, in a good sense, for his own benefit.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Lowry and JV produce wins unlike most of BCs 'treasures' (Gay, Bargnani, DeRozan).

I agree few care about Ross anymore. Hopefully he makes people take notice next year, in a good sense, for his own benefit.

Forget about the O'Neal and Turkoglu moves, I'm more happy that the Jamario Moon, Hassan Adams, Will Solomon type moves are a thing of the past.

Give me projects like Bruno, Bebe, Daniels, etc... any day of the week, instead of wasting roster spots on washed-up never-have-beens.

[JimiCliff]

They definitely seem to be hitched to BC's wagon. It's funny that Lowry (attempted to be traded, then resigned at great value deal?), Valanciunas (too positive an outlook?) and Ross (nobody cares?) seem to get a free pass.

I think that there's a greater anti-JV sentiment throughout the fan base than is represented here.

I play pickup with this one guy who can't stop talking about how he's a bad rebounder.

[Mindlessness]

I think that there's a greater anti-JV sentiment throughout the fan base than is represented here.

I play pickup with this one guy who can't stop talking about how he's a bad rebounder.

Yeah, I don't know why, but outside of this forum (as well as r/nba, rapsHQ), I haven't seen much optimism about Jonas at all. People complain about his supposed inconsistency and his supposed bad rebounding (lol 10th in TRB%). It's weird honestly.

[Bandit]

I think that there's a greater anti-JV sentiment throughout the fan base than is represented here.

I play pickup with this one guy who can't stop talking about how he's a bad rebounder.

Most people i know who follow basketball at all just kind of stare at me blankly when i talk about JV. Not sure there's much "anti-JV" as there is the sentiment that he's just another big guy playing basketball.

[mcHAPPY]

Yeah, I don't know why, but outside of this forum (as well as r/nba, rapsHQ), I haven't seen much optimism about Jonas at all. People complain about his supposed inconsistency and his supposed bad rebounding (lol 10th in TRB%). It's weird honestly.

I believe it comes from taking Casey at face value in all his post game pressers and post practice scrums where he says JV is the beginning and end of all the team's problems (ok, slight exaggeration on my part....but not by much!).

Hopefully the end result of the constant verbal take downs was the relatively cheap extension he just signed.

[distorsun]

Anyone who knows the NBA knows he's just a decent back up;
he may turn into a solid back up, but time will tell.
Delon may steal his job at some point, especially if he can knock down that 3pt.

And any of you who watched Fiba should be able to see that Cory Joseph is NOT a starting calibre point guard in this league yet. So all that noise about getting rid of Kyle to start Cory is just foolish.