Sun, Colangelo interview

[yertu damkule]

[QUOTE=ErnieD;65555]

as nutso as this fanbase has become, i'm a little surprised that there isn't more call for a change in the regime, but i guess BC's worked his charm on the masses, and instilled enough of the 'there's no one better out there to replace him' mentality that there's now some kind of fear that he won't be re-upped. bizarre.

is BC CAPABLE of rebuilding this team? of course he is. WILL HE? who knows. HAS HE? not yet. rebuilding is more than putting a quasi-competent team together for a season or two, it's about changing the mindset of the franchise from loser to winner, and putting the foundation in place for long-term success.
QUOTE]

I am willing to see BC's contract extended, but it has nothing to do with being charmed by him or being afraid he won't re-up. After the VC and CB episodes, I don't think anyone here is afraid of that; if they don't re-up, then let's make the best of it and move on.

If we are to believe the story of BC's arrival in Toronto, it was at the behest and pressure of the league which had worries about the future survival of the franchise. His job was to come here, make things better, and make them better fast. We can all say that "well, BC has the authority to do whatever he wanted to with the franchise" but seriously who in this world doesn't have to answer to anybody??

League: Toronto is in trouble. Go there and make the team better. And make it snappy. We are afraid the farce that was the Babcock era will kill the franchise.
BC: Okay. My first task will be to tear everything down and rebuild from bottom up. Sure the team will suck for the next 5 years while there are growing pains, but in the end rebuilding from scratch with multiple lottery picks over those 5 years is the way to go.
League: Huh??? The team might not LAST 5 years in Toronto if they will suck that long!!! Didn't you hear what we said. Make them better NOW.

Come on, BC didn't have full freedom. Look at the Leafs (the most solid franchise in the NHL) who have gone the total rebuild route; anyone out there willing to say that Brian Burke isn't facing huge heat for what has transpired? At least he doesn't have to worry about the survival of the franchise.

Personally, I think the Raptors are on a sound financial foundation. Toronto will support an NBA franchise even if they continue to suck for the next 10 years -- there are enough die-hard basketball fans here to ensure that. There weren't a lot of people in the league office and at MLSE who believed that when Babcock was fired.

A rebuild now is a politically acceptable action, and it wasn't so when BC first arrived. My jury is still out on BC; He could be a genius; he could be a trade-junkie who gets AirMiles points for every trade he makes; he could simply be a good GM whose teams will never win an NBA championship. But I'm willing to give him a chance still because I think in the past he made deals to suit the political environment he was in. Now he has a lot more freedom because the team sucks and we all know it sucks and we all know it will take some time to rebuild.

And we have no prima donnas on this team that we have to kowtow to. (Some of you may argue with me about that wrt Andrea Bargnani.)

wow. i like your conspiracy theories. so, BC was a plant by the L to make it a viable franchise...and the L gives two shits about TO being a viable market why, exactly? teams relocate all the time...i kinda/sorta doubt that the piddly (in the grand scheme) contribution the canadian market makes to the NBA would be worth the effort involved in instilling a puppet as GM in TO. further, the LAST thing the nba would want (if they were to admit to such a thing) would be for TO to become a winning franchise (i.e. a chip contender), especially after they lost carter (the only marketable - south of the border - *star* the franchise has ever had), since ratings for raptor games in the states suck outside of the market of their opponent. there is zero (or near zero) interest in US markets for the raptors.

now, that being said...i do know that stern is very interested in global expansion, and one of the things that has helped push interest in the NBA upward in europe was/is the 'international flavour' of the raptors (similar to how yao spiked interest in the NBA in china), so in that regard, i wouldn't be surprised if there was some behind-the-scenes shenanigans.

but, if your premise is even partially true...isn't that all the more reason to begin a new direction?

[yertu damkule]

Lets not forget that before the Raptors hired him, BC was a "name-brand GM". No guarantees that the future will be brighter with (another) name-brand GM

that's pretty much what i'm saying...i don't want them to go after a name-brand GM, but the fact that they likely wouldn't be able to get one seems to be the main argument of those who are in favour of keeping him.

[Multipaul]

if by 'awesome' you mean making the playoffs as the 7 or 8 seed & getting bounced, then i agree. AWESOME! right up MLSE's alley - they get the extra revenue from a couple playoff games, and they convince the fans that they're 'almost there.' warm up that treadmill, baby!

as for MJ - i can't disagree with your take on what happened with that trade, it was a bush move to back out like that, especially if you're then going to dump chandler for a pu pu platter that gives them even LESS financial flexibility. still...he looked at jose's contract & the past couple years, and just didn't feel it was worth it.

with respect to him playing next year...it's not impossible, but it's about as close to being out of the question as is possible. set aside his age...he's majority owner of the kitties...i'm pretty sure league bylaws prohibit majory owners from playing for the team they own, so he'd have to sell his majority stake in the team first...and there's no way that happens between now & next season. or the next season. when he came back as owner/player of the wiz, he was a minority owner.

Thrush Hermit in da building!

You gotta think though man, with Chandler and Bargs together, and JJ running point and putting up #'s, playing pick and roll with those guys, we would be well ahead of 7/8. We would be better than Indy/NY/Philly/Charlotte. Hell, the cats would have Jose as a PG LOL

[slaw]

i don't want them to go after a name-brand GM, but the fact that they likely wouldn't be able to get one seems to be the main argument of those who are in favour of keeping him.

And that argument isn't speculative, it was proven wrong the day BC (a big-name GM) came to Toronto, which was considered quite a coup at the time. As you and others have noted ad nauseum, we don't know who is available until the Raps start looking.

[ErnieD]

What conspiracy theory? It is just business sense. Tell me one league that does not want stable franchises? The NBA already has lost Vancouver; do they really want their entire international expansion strategy to fail by having Toronto fail too? Having both Vancouver and Toronto move would be like having David Stern wear an "I am stupid" sign around his neck.

"teams relocate all the time" -- And you don't think that makes them look weak? Take a look at the NHL: take your pick Phoenix, Tampa Bay, Atlanta, Florida.... Moving a franchise, in most cases, means you made a mistake, you didn't do your due diligence during the expansion vetting process. It may not bring down the franchise values of stalwarts like the Knicks or Celtics or Lakers, but not all NBA franchises are as strong as these three.

"further, the LAST thing the nba would want (if they were to admit to such a thing) would be for TO to become a winning franchise (i.e. a chip contender), " Ummmm.....is that YOUR conspiracy theory?

There is a huge difference between a winning franchise and a championship franchise. How many championships has BC won. But he did have a track record of competitive teams in Phoenix, he did have a track record of being a competent GM. Babcock did not, Grunwald did not, Thomas did not. Get a winning team in Toronto (doesn't have to be a champion) and the Toronto fans would be swooning.


"ratings for raptor games in the states suck outside of the market of their opponent. there is zero (or near zero) interest in US markets for the raptors"

There is zero interest in US markets for the the Phoenix Coyotes, Atlanta Thrashers, Florida Panthers, and TB Lightning, but the NHL is doing everything they can to keep them viable. Why? Because a failed franchise lowers the tide for all the boats in the league. The difference here though is that the NBA is viable in Toronto if it is under competent management. The same probably can't be said for the NHL in those 4 cities.

By the way, the ratings suck in the US for every Canadian team. The Blue Jays don't draw flies on US networks. But MLB would want to see the Blue Jays fail. Did you really think the NBA was so naive to think that Toronto or Vancouver would light up the US Nielsen ratings? They knew what they were getting into when they tried for franchises in Canada. They were more interested in establishing the NBA game internationally.

[yertu damkule]

Thrush Hermit in da building!

You gotta think though man, with Chandler and Bargs together, and JJ running point and putting up #'s, playing pick and roll with those guys, we would be well ahead of 7/8. We would be better than Indy/NY/Philly/Charlotte. Hell, the cats would have Jose as a PG LOL

you're welcome to your opinion. mine simply differs. i don't see replacing jose & evans with chandler & diaw (and whatever moves would or would not have been made subsequently) as making them a 6 (or better) seed. but hey, we'll never know.

i do know that having chandler at the 5 & sliding bargs over to the 4 would have helped - marginally - with their overall froncourt D (at the expense of minutes/experience for amir & ed), but it's not as though playing bargs beside a 'real' centre at his 'natural' position is going to make him a better defender or rebounder.

so, they win more games, likely make the playoffs (due more to the state of the east than anything else), continue on the path to mediocrity, and waste a year of development for their young talent. having diaw as a primary ballhandler on top of jack, while also making sure bargs gets fed, further reduces DD's touches/involvement, and perhaps delays his development even further.

haha re. thrush hermit...ironically enough, he (er, joel plaskett) did play here (halifax) the other night as part of the canada games thingy. pretty good lineup of talent over the course of the games...sloan was last night, hey rosetta! tonight, with city & colour and matt mays also playing. all free. nice. gonna try to get down tonight for hey rosetta! (a favourite).

[Joey]

teams relocate all the time...

They do? I must have missed something ... 3 times in 25 years is 'All the time'?

Toronto is a HUGE deal for the NBA, and means ALOT to the NBA in terms of Money Making.
Behind New York, LA and Chicago we are the LARGEST market in the North America.
There's no way we are getting moved anywhere.
With a Perennial LOSER of a team we are still Top 10 in Profitability. Why would the NBA NOT want to nurture this market and ensure long term success?

[Apollo]

the point isn't to just start blindly naming names

I didn't ask you to blindly name names. That's the point. People who are saying they should axe him are doing so blindly, without considering the options. You don't sell your house without knowing where you want to live or if you can find a suitable place to live. Most people don't quit their jobs unless they have something else lineup up that will allow them to prosper. It wouldn't make sense to sell your house or quit your job without having a good plan and realistic goals that put you ahead, would it? Then why would you toss a guy under the bus if you don't know anything about the options to replace him?

since i obviously have no insight into who would either legitimately be available or interested (and 99% of those reading probably wouldn't know who they are).

So how can you say off with his head? I don't think we're privy to information that could allow us to logically come to that conclusion. We're not talking about a Rob Babcock incompetent GM who we know could easily be replaced with another incompetent GM in the worst case scenario. Colangelo has some hardware to prove he can run a succesful team even if he has not won a championship and has not found much success in Toronto. I want to know they can do better than him before I say get rid of him.

i'm merely interested, i suppose, in knowing what you're basing the notion that BC is so wonderful that he's irreplaceable upon?

I didn't say he was irreplaceable. Find where I say that and I'll give you $100. Those words haven't come out of my mouth. I'm saying let's not go for a stroll through the forest wearing a blindfold.

i assume that those who feel strongly about the future potential of DD, ED, etc. feel stronger about what BC has started doing, and would therefore be more open to having him stay on?

I feel strongly that I've seen the team lose enough. I feel strongly that Colangelo, even though he has not had success here yet, is a lot better than Rob Babcock or Isiah Thomas was. I feel strongly that he has the potential to carry the team further than Glen Grunwald did. He also has the ability to clean up his own messes, something Glen Grunwald could not do. I feel strongly that Colangelo is not perfect, is not the best in the league BUT is certainly no where near the worst.

but if you want some names...i'd simply start by looking into the front office of teams who have built strong franchises, and seeing who might be a good fit, available, and interested. if you look around the league, teams on the rise (basically, those teams that until recently were in the same/similar position as the raps, and are who the raps would like to become sooner rather than later) are GM'd by guys who started as assistant's either with that team or with another, and were given an opportunity.

so, guys i'd target - dennis lindsay, ryan mcdonough, keith grant, troy weaver, & kevin o'connor (ok, he's a pipe-dream, but with what's going on the with jazz...who knows?). lindsay & weaver would be at the top.

i do agree that it's very unlikely that they'd be able to attract a name-brand GM (a kevin pritchard, for example), but i don't really think it's in their best interest to look in that direction anyway, at least not at this stage of a rebuild.

So you want him gone to make way for some excellent GM's lacky who has no experience making the decisions himself? I'm not sold on someone like that taking the Raptors further than Colangelo but that's a lot better than most people suggest around here so props to you for taking the time to progress that stance forward when no one else was willing or able.

Perhaps we me may need a thread soon to discuss the names you mentioned, perhaps Colangelo gets extended. I think we'll know the direction this conversation needs to take for real very soon... Or I hope so at least.

They do? I must have missed something ... 3 times in 25 years is 'All the time'?

Toronto is a HUGE deal for the NBA, and means ALOT to the NBA in terms of Money Making.
Behind New York, LA and Chicago we are the LARGEST market in the North America.
There's no way we are getting moved anywhere.
With a Perennial LOSER of a team we are still Top 10 in Profitability. Why would the NBA NOT want to nurture this market and ensure long term success?

The Raptors always get strong attendance numbers even during miserable years. The GTA is a huge area and has a very loyal fan base. Then you have the rest of Canada supporting the team as well. The Raptors won't leave Toronto because they have better support than the majority of teams. On top of that Stern wouldn't want to alienate the Canadian market. There's big money to be made here in merchandising and advertising.

[yertu damkule]

They do? I must have missed something ... 3 times in 25 years is 'All the time'?

Toronto is a HUGE deal for the NBA, and means ALOT to the NBA in terms of Money Making.
Behind New York, LA and Chicago we are the LARGEST market in the North America.
There's no way we are getting moved anywhere.
With a Perennial LOSER of a team we are still Top 10 in Profitability. Why would the NBA NOT want to nurture this market and ensure long term success?

you're right, i guess teams don't relocate 'all the time.' my bad for use of hyperbole. of course, it's been 3 teams in the last decade (SEA to OKC, CHARL to NO, VAN to MEM), so it's not as though it happens as rarely as you suggest either.

oh, don't get me wrong, i truly/fully believe that stern & co want the TO franchise to be PROFITABLE, to make them money, and to help expand the globalization of the game. that's different, IMO, than SUCCESSFUL. the leafs/raptors are profitable, but aren't exactly successful, except in pure business terms.

[yertu damkule]

So you want him gone to make way for some excellent GM's lacky who has no experience making the decisions himself? I'm not sold on someone like that taking the Raptors further than Colangelo but that's a lot better than most people suggest around here so props to you for taking the time to progress that stance forward when no one else was willing or able.

Perhaps we me may need a thread soon to discuss the names you mentioned, perhaps Colangelo gets extended. I think we'll know the direction this conversation needs to take for real very soon... Or I hope so at least.

i dunno, man...most of the names being tossed around as top young GMs (presti is at the top of the heap) started out as someone's lackey. further, how many GMs currently in the L DIDN'T start as an assistant? personally, i'd rather have an assistant who started at the bottom & worked their way up on merit over someone who's dad gave him the job, whether it was deserved or not.

finally, i do agree that you don't 'fire' someone without having a replacement, but it seems to me that you're only looking at a replacement in terms of a big-name guy. if the raps have kicked the tires on some alternatives, but found no interesting takers, and are re-upping BC because they legitimately have no better alternative, then i can't complain about that one iota. but to me, it seems as though they (MLSE) is mainly concerned with maintaining an identity within the league, and BC gives them that (not to mention profitability); re-signing BC to a long-term deal sends the message that they're happy with the status quo, that they're willing to accept on-court failure as long as they remain profitable. not much to motivate joe fan to keep themselves invested, IMO.

oh, and FWIW, i'm 99.999% sure BC does get extended.

[Apollo]

personally, i'd rather have an assistant who started at the bottom & worked their way up on merit over someone who's dad gave him the job, whether it was deserved or not.

No doubt Bryan Colangelo had opportunities not available to most but how does that mean he doesn't deserve to be where he is? He has a college education and has been around the management side since he was a boy. I don't think it's fair to discredit a person because he was more fortunate than the next guy. Nothing I have read about Colangelo tells me that he's lazy or unintelligent. He is well respected throughout the league. Respect doesn't come for a family name, respect must be earned.

finally, i do agree that you don't 'fire' someone without having a replacement, but it seems to me that you're only looking at a replacement in terms of a big-name guy. if the raps have kicked the tires on some alternatives, but found no interesting takers, and are re-upping BC because they legitimately have no better alternative, then i can't complain about that one iota. but to me, it seems as though they (MLSE) is mainly concerned with maintaining an identity within the league, and BC gives them that (not to mention profitability); re-signing BC to a long-term deal sends the message that they're happy with the status quo, that they're willing to accept on-court failure as long as they remain profitable. not much to motivate joe fan to keep themselves invested, IMO.

oh, and FWIW, i'm 99.999% sure BC does get extended.

I think they're concerned with getting a successful product out there. The more successful the team is, the more money they make. People don't come to the games because Colangelo runs the team, they come to the games to see the team play and hopefully win. If right now Colangelo is the guy who gives them the best chance to win down the road then I say go for it. It looks like he's turned the page and is now doing a proper rebuild with the kind of players who won't need to depend on one guy to be successful. That kind of team can weather the loss of an important piece through injury or business. I don't know if he'll be successful or not but if he keeps bringing in talents like Ed Davis and DeMar DeRozan every year this team should look really good in a two to three years.

I will agree and have said it in the past, Colangelo is overrated. That doesn't mean he's not the best option right now though...