Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Retool: BC, why must you be the "tool" part?

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

  • Retool: BC, why must you be the "tool" part?

    Well, I guess this is good bye to the rebuild:

    Bryan Colangelo may be under siege now, but there is no surrender to be had. No retreat, either. No, the general manager of the Toronto Raptors is not going to rebuild; he’s not even going to use the word. He prefers “retool,” or “re-engineer.” Those teams that tank a year or two and try to win the right lottery? That’s not happening here.
    http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/R...315/story.html

    The article goes on to talk about how BC thinks we need to field the best team possible in order to justify season ticket holders. There is some talk about our guys improving but the general tone and win now message has me worried about the future. While I am against tanking, if BC signs another Hedo type deal (JO is free again *shudder*) I think I may cry.
    Last edited by hateslosing; Fri Jul 9, 2010, 09:08 AM.
    "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

    -Churchill

  • #2
    The most worrying part is where he boldly states that his commitment is to putting a competitive product on the floor at all times for the sake of season ticket holders and corporate sponsorships. This attitude of placing a higher priority on raking in money in the short term than winning championships in the long run is exactly why this franchise is mired in mediocrity. It's something we've all known about MLSE's intentions for a while, but to have BC state it so directly is sickening.

    Comment


    • #3
      I disagree with those who say that the only way to achieve long-term success is to "tank" and build upon a few years in the lottery and high draft picks. This hasn't worked for many teams, and is still a "hit or miss" approach. Consider the Raptors as a prime example. They hit one of the top draft picks of the past decade with Chris Bosh (now one of the "Three Amigos"), and followed up with a #1 overall pick (Andrea Bargnani). Some can argue that they wasted the Bargnani pick, but he was a consensus top 2 or top 3 pick by all experts at the time. The problem was that Toronto had #1 in the wrong draft, which is very hard to predict anyway.

      I much prefer the Utah approach. Even while rebuilding, continue to enhance the value of the players on your roster by giving them a chance to win and succeed. This increases their value to other teams if you want to trade for a young asset, or for draft picks (like they did for #3 pick and Deron Williams). The problem with tanking is that you devalue all of your players as trade assets (consider Devin Harris with Dallas vs. NJ), and still might not get the franchise-saving altering player in the draft. So, I can't fault Colangelo for his logic. If having a somewhat competitive team builds the confidence, quality and value of some of his young core, then even if they don't develop into a top echelon group, they can still be moved for other promising players and/or high draft picks in the future.

      Comment


      • #4
        The issue and worry I have is not that BC is going to not let us tank. I hate tanking and I think it is the worst thing a team can do. My concern is that BC will trade away our youth for "proven veterans" and we'll be stuck at 8th or 9th in the East for the next 5 years. What I want is for BC to just not touch the roster other than too move turk or Jose and just let the guys develop. If they win, great, if they lose well at least they are growing as a team.
        "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

        -Churchill

        Comment


        • #5
          hateslosing wrote: View Post
          The issue and worry I have is not that BC is going to not let us tank. I hate tanking and I think it is the worst thing a team can do. My concern is that BC will trade away our youth for "proven veterans" and we'll be stuck at 8th or 9th in the East for the next 5 years. What I want is for BC to just not touch the roster other than too move turk or Jose and just let the guys develop. If they win, great, if they lose well at least they are growing as a team.
          Good point. I think that he should look to enhance the playing experience and success of the young and promising players by building an effective team that plays and practices the right way. Over time, this will maximize their effectiveness, clarify what additional pieces are needed, and enhance the value of all of the players.

          Comment


          • #6
            Amen!!!

            Bouncepass wrote: View Post
            I disagree with those who say that the only way to achieve long-term success is to "tank" and build upon a few years in the lottery and high draft picks. This hasn't worked for many teams, and is still a "hit or miss" approach. Consider the Raptors as a prime example. They hit one of the top draft picks of the past decade with Chris Bosh (now one of the "Three Amigos"), and followed up with a #1 overall pick (Andrea Bargnani). Some can argue that they wasted the Bargnani pick, but he was a consensus top 2 or top 3 pick by all experts at the time. The problem was that Toronto had #1 in the wrong draft, which is very hard to predict anyway.

            I much prefer the Utah approach. Even while rebuilding, continue to enhance the value of the players on your roster by giving them a chance to win and succeed. This increases their value to other teams if you want to trade for a young asset, or for draft picks (like they did for #3 pick and Deron Williams). The problem with tanking is that you devalue all of your players as trade assets (consider Devin Harris with Dallas vs. NJ), and still might not get the franchise-saving altering player in the draft. So, I can't fault Colangelo for his logic. If having a somewhat competitive team builds the confidence, quality and value of some of his young core, then even if they don't develop into a top echelon group, they can still be moved for other promising players and/or high draft picks in the future.
            Finally, someone with logic and reason. If you look at New York and New Jersey (who cleared space), Golden State (which led the league in fan attendance) and Minnesota, tanking, clearing, gambling, call it what you will, will not get you any success. The caveat however is that Oklahoma's success will be short-term because soon, that team won't be able to keep everyone together as they will simply cost too much. They have another 2 years of window to make this happen. This is sports.

            I understand that losing has been difficult, but we simply are not as bad as the teams above. Simply not. Andrea for all his faults was the top 3 at the time. BC also inherited this team with pieces from the past. I'd rather have the Utah and San Antonio model if you ask me. That is what we need, not gutting this team for future pieces. As a regular fan that watches the game live, I want to see a competitive team. They may lose by 6-8 points but competitive nonetheless. Watching the Nets last year was painful and fortunately, the Raps won't be that bad.

            Comment


            • #7
              I agree with Bouncepass. The infatuation with 'rebuilding', meaning deliberately building a terrible young team hoping to get a superstar draft pick, is the product of bad sportswriters. The concept is easy to understand, so for some people, they think it's the way to build a winner. It isn't -- or at least, hardly ever. Yes, the thunder might have success... but who won championships in the past 5 years? LA, Boston, SA. Did they tank? Nope. On those teams, Duncan wwas the only #1 pick the team actually drafted, and they didn't do it by tanking either. Winning teams are built by good GMing: which is making good trades, mostly.

              I'm glad to hear that Colangelo is thinking the same way -- not that it's surprising.

              Hateslosing: I don't think we have to worry about Colangelo trading youth for bad veterans. His plan has clearly been to accumulate young promising players and then develop them properly. Even Kleiza is only 25! I don't see that changing. BC will try to develop Amir, Bargnani, and Derozan as centrepeices, with good young supporting cast, unless he gets an opportunity to swing a really good trade.

              Comment


              • #8
                Rebuilding is not building a shitty team on purpose. In my opinion, it's building around and running with your youth, allowing them to make mistakes. If they play well, you're doing good because... well, they're playing well. If they win twenty games or whatever, you get a draft pick, you have continuity with your team still and you work with your young players to continue to develop. Coaching and veterans are important for their off-the-court contribution. It's important to build a culture of self-improvement and optimism, to not accept losing but finding positives in the losing to move forward to keep it from happening again.

                Rebuilding shouldn't all be lumped into one category. There are bad ways to do it and there are productive ways to do it. It's possible my idea of such falls into the former though.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Like him or not, like what he's done or not, Colangelo is a man of integrity even when his back is to the wall. He doesn't believe in quitting. That's fine as long as win total isn't prioritized ahead of future.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bouncepass wrote: View Post
                    I disagree with those who say that the only way to achieve long-term success is to "tank" and build upon a few years in the lottery and high draft picks. This hasn't worked for many teams, and is still a "hit or miss" approach. Consider the Raptors as a prime example. They hit one of the top draft picks of the past decade with Chris Bosh (now one of the "Three Amigos"), and followed up with a #1 overall pick (Andrea Bargnani). Some can argue that they wasted the Bargnani pick, but he was a consensus top 2 or top 3 pick by all experts at the time. The problem was that Toronto had #1 in the wrong draft, which is very hard to predict anyway.

                    I much prefer the Utah approach. Even while rebuilding, continue to enhance the value of the players on your roster by giving them a chance to win and succeed. This increases their value to other teams if you want to trade for a young asset, or for draft picks (like they did for #3 pick and Deron Williams). The problem with tanking is that you devalue all of your players as trade assets (consider Devin Harris with Dallas vs. NJ), and still might not get the franchise-saving altering player in the draft. So, I can't fault Colangelo for his logic. If having a somewhat competitive team builds the confidence, quality and value of some of his young core, then even if they don't develop into a top echelon group, they can still be moved for other promising players and/or high draft picks in the future.
                    It is like you still think, free agents want to come here to play for us. Sorry to bust your bubble, no. It leaves us one other option - build through the draft. If we tank two years and get a top 10 pick in both years, there is no way 2 consecutive drafts are going to be weak. If you are okay with us being 13 like this year(and subsequent years because you like to see a "competitive" team on the floor), players like Paul George, Cole Aldrich will be gone and we get scraps hoping it is a "steal"(honestly, we did not see Ed Davis workout, I can not see how 12 teams will pass on Davis for a wrist injury that is not a red flag unlike knee injuries, and relying on his college coaches for information is stupid as you expect them to stand for their guy even if there are other red flags). If you like that, I call it one word "mediocrity" - good enough to put fans in seats hoping for playoffs(which to MLSE means profits that is important to them and not winning) but still suck and probably be moved at the end of the day to Seattle once the Kool-Aid effects on fans like you wear off..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The 'tanking doesn't work because some teams tank and don't succeed' argument is deeply flawed. Firstly, most of the teams that players list to make this argument, such as new Jersey, Golden State, etc, are teams on the upswing, with young talent that simply hasn't had time to develop yet. Furthermore, it's bad ownership and bad GMs that ruin the rebuild process, as well as a dose of bad luck.

                      In contrast, consider the teams that don't rebuild. Can you name any that have successfully managed to steadily improve through dealing and free agency without the aid of at least one solid top 5 pick after losing their top player? Someone above mentioned Utah, but they got Deron Williams at 3, lucked into Boozer in the second round, and are still stuck as a middle of the pack playoff team without any real shot at a title now or in the foreseeable future. I would argue that it's Jerry Sloan and his phenomenal coaching and ability to integrate players into his system effectively that is keeping Utah afloat. Most teams, the raptors included, lack a coach with that kind of experience, ability, discipline and command of the team. Consider also the Lakers, who had to go through years of being awful WITH Kobe after Shaq left, and needed to luck into Bynum and Gasol in order to compete again.

                      Yes, tanking isn't a sure thing. but it's a lot more certain than the alternative, especially when you have a roster that lacks the kind of trade assets usually used to pull in a franchise player; enormous expiring deals, multiple draft picks and expendable young talent.

                      Is this what you want, to be perpetually on the treadmill?

                      edit: I should add that I don't endorse 'tanking' per se, rather rebuilding by focusing on developing youth, shedding bad contracts, opening up cap flexibility and dealing for players with the potential to exceed the value of their contracts. You don't need to tank for a 1st overall pick in order to rebuild, you just have to be shrewd and disciplined.
                      Last edited by Lark Benson; Fri Jul 9, 2010, 12:13 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You will not rebuild under BC. He will make Raptor the next Clippers, a team who has been trying to rebuild for last 10 years but due to bad management and ... has failed over and over.

                        BC is the same way. He is unfocused and has no direction going forward. He is a danger to this team and his effect will be felt for many years to come. He is giving long term contract to unproven players and over paying them and basically taking the future of Raptors Hostage.

                        His ego is so big that he can not even admit that he is rebuilding and hence the ridiculous moves and deals and ...

                        He has failed in every step of the way from his first day in this Organizations and does not seem to be able to find his way.

                        The first step to a better future for this team is to fire BC and start with a guy who understand the game and what it takes to build a championship team.

                        Enough is enough, time to move on pass this loser and to a better future.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          smushmush wrote: View Post
                          It is like you still think, free agents want to come here to play for us. Sorry to bust your bubble, no. It leaves us one other option - build through the draft. If we tank two years and get a top 10 pick in both years, there is no way 2 consecutive drafts are going to be weak. If you are okay with us being 13 like this year(and subsequent years because you like to see a "competitive" team on the floor), players like Paul George, Cole Aldrich will be gone and we get scraps hoping it is a "steal"(honestly, we did not see Ed Davis workout, I can not see how 12 teams will pass on Davis for a wrist injury that is not a red flag unlike knee injuries, and relying on his college coaches for information is stupid as you expect them to stand for their guy even if there are other red flags). If you like that, I call it one word "mediocrity" - good enough to put fans in seats hoping for playoffs(which to MLSE means profits that is important to them and not winning) but still suck and probably be moved at the end of the day to Seattle once the Kool-Aid effects on fans like you wear off..
                          Smushmush:

                          Whoa... settle down.

                          Ummm.... teams are not just built through the draft and free agency, but also through trades, which is how many good and great teams are built and maintained. But to do that, you need to have players with trade value, and abject failure of a team craters the value of your players making trading them for players or draft picks difficult. Franchise-changing players get traded all the time... (Nash, Kidd, Kobe, Gasol, Rondo, KG). Besides, if you want to get high draft picks you can trade decent players, or expiring contracts or use cap space (like a TPE) to trade for other bad team's draft picks. How do you think Houston got the Knicks' lottery picks, or Miami got the Raptors 1st rounder, or Utah got Deron Williams (#3)? You mentioned Cole Aldrich... he was drafted by New Orleans and traded to Oklahoma City.

                          Regarding building by cratering and using the draft to get a "franchise" player, last year at this time most experts' mock drafts for 2010 said that this year's draft was very promising, and there was a PF that was picked by most as the projected #2 or #3 this year.... Ed Davis. This year, NJ was historically bad, and ended up with Derrick Favors, who could be good, or could be like another top 3 pick... Tyrus Thomas. Besides, if free agents won't sign in Toronto, what makes you think that a franchise talent who is drafted will stay once he gets good enough to lead a championship team? Hasn't Toronto already had experience with that???

                          I already reminded you that the Raptors have already had the chance to build around a #1 (Bargnani) and one of the best drafted players of the past decade (Bosh). One of the problems with this approach is that you don't always get complementary players with top draft picks. Rose and Bosh or Rose and Bargnani might have made a good nucleus, but when it comes to the lottery beggars can't be choosers.

                          Lark Benson:

                          I agree with your overall sentiment that the Raptors should focus on building with their youth, but putting them in impossible situations where they can't play with decent players and compete can erode confidence, make it difficult to improve, and decrease their value if trades are needed to mold the team. Even if you are really bad, winning the lottery is literally a crapshoot (ask NJ), and then getting a franchise-changing player is not a certainty. Your point about Kobe is exactly what I mean (the Lakers traded for him, by the way). Having one or two top-tier players is not enough. You need to build a team around them, and "lucking" into them by draft (Bynum) or trade (Gasol) doesn't require tanking. Finally, I am pretty sure that most fans in most cities would enjoy the success of Utah.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Raptor4Ever wrote: View Post
                            You will not rebuild under BC. He will make Raptor the next Clippers, a team who has been trying to rebuild for last 10 years but due to bad management and ... has failed over and over.

                            BC is the same way. He is unfocused and has no direction going forward. He is a danger to this team and his effect will be felt for many years to come. He is giving long term contract to unproven players and over paying them and basically taking the future of Raptors Hostage.

                            His ego is so big that he can not even admit that he is rebuilding and hence the ridiculous moves and deals and ...

                            He has failed in every step of the way from his first day in this Organizations and does not seem to be able to find his way.

                            The first step to a better future for this team is to fire BC and start with a guy who understand the game and what it takes to build a championship team.

                            Enough is enough, time to move on pass this loser and to a better future.
                            I didn't say that Colangelo is the right person to build the team. He might not be. But Colangelo's biggest mistakes appear to have been trying to quickly build a winning team around two top draft picks (CB4 and AB) who didn't complement each other enough to win. Now some people are saying that Toronto should tank, get a young franchise player in the draft and start again. Toronto has already had the opportunity to build around "elite" drafted players (Carter, McGrady, Bosh). Before people suggest that the team should now tank and try that again they should remember how long it took to build a decent team "around" a young "budding superstar", and then what happened when the "superstar" was good enough to able to dictate a move to his preferred destination.
                            Last edited by Bouncepass; Fri Jul 9, 2010, 01:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think there is a real conflict in Colangelo due to his job titles of being both the president and GM. As the president his job is to ensure things in the franchise move smoothly and to ensure the team always makes money. Therefore if he decides to re-build as a GM, he cannot justify the possibility of lowering revenues as a result in lower attendance, television and product sales for 2-3 seasons when there is no chance they will compete for a playoff spot.

                              Maybe Colangelo should stick to being the president and hire someone good to be the GM thus a "healthy" conflict will ensue between a guy that is trying to improve the team for the long haul and a guy that wants to make as much money as possible in the short term.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X