Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Top GM's To replace BC if MLSE finally Cans Him

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

  • #46
    Brandon wrote: View Post
    You're raising two issues here, I think. One the one hand, you're defending Bargnani as a player who, I guess, shouldn't be traded? And on the other hand, you're complaining that everyone expected too much of the #1 pick in the 2006 draft.
    No he should not be traded, in my opinion.
    Complaining sounds whiney. Whining is not my intent. I didn't say everyone expected too much of the #1 pick in 2006. What I said was people expect the #1 pick to be a franchise player or the best player in the draft and that is not reasonable or realistic.

    So as to the first issue, I think the Raps are a disastrous team full of mediocre/bad interchangeable players. Bargnani is a big contract who doesn't make a difference on the court. I suppose you think the points he scores, and granted he's a relatively efficient complementary scorer -- basically an above average stretch forward, are crucial to maintain the Raps [winning] ways. I'd prefer a defensive player at his position because most power forwards cannot defend the post against guys like Dwight Howard/Andrew Bynum et al. The thing people often ignore when they evaluate Bargnani is that the things he does well are not usually required of a center. No one complains that Bynum or Howard cannot shoot from the arc. Ball-handling players do that very well. But notice that many knowledgeable fans and critics do complain that Weems and DeRozan (interchangeable swingmen) cannot shoot from long range, because their position demands that skill. In the same way, we can imagine a point guard who can block shots and rebound but cannot dribble the ball, pass it, or shoot it. Such a payer would hurt his team more than he'd help it. Which is how I'd describe Bargnani. I don't think he's more than a seventh man on a winning team.
    There is a thread called 'Everything Bargnani' in a sticky at the top of the 'Everything Raptors' forum. This topic has been beaten to a death there but thank you for the break down on traditional positions and roles in the NBA.

    It's true that people shouldn't hold general managers to high standards when it comes to the #1 pick in any draft, but everyone knew the 2006 draft wasn't full of great players. Colangelo could have sold or traded the pick. He could have drafted Aldridge or Rondo (I excuse Roy because of the knees, which everyone knew about). Colangelo could have refused to sign Bargnani to such a large extension (or any extension at all). By his own actions, Colangelo has tied his fate to Bargnani's success. Bargnani and the other large contracts are a stumbling block to adding real talent to the roster.
    I think the Raptors' complete lack of leadership from the top of the pyramid down to Colangelo is a bigger problem than Colangelo himself, but since Bargnani has to go, BC has to go too.[/QUOTE]

    If you call 8/9/10/11/12 million dollar contract from 2010/11 through 2014/15 for a player of Bargnani's abilities and 25 years of age (i.e. hitting his prime in the next year or two) a big or large contact, I suggest you look around the payrolls of the NBA. I would also suggest instead of bashing Bargnani for what he can't do, look at what he can. Imagine a PG who can stop his own man and a SF similar to Josh Smith (i.e. who can rebound and defend). Building a team is a process - a marathon, not a sprint (unless you are the C's 3 years ago).

    As has been written numerous times, Bargnani is a piece. It is unfortunate that this year he is 'the man' but the Raps just started a full rebuild. If DD keeps going as is, next year he will most likely be 'the man' and Bargnani becomes the second option to him (barring an amazing drafted rookie or trade, I hope this plays out). He is not a franchise player and he is not paid like one. The Raptors need a couple of legit of NBA studs - some of who may develop through DD or ED. They have a team of 2nd/3rd options, complimentary players, and role players on reasonable contracts. The only bad contract on the team, in my opinion, is Calderon.

    BC has to go? Please. He is one of the best GM's in the business according to Mark Cuban. He has two EOY awards that are voted on by his peers - he is well respected. Two common themes ring in my ears when I read posts such this:

    1) What have you done for me lately?
    2) You don't know what you have until it is gone.

    The Raps are 8 months in to a rebuild with 2 players capable of scoring 20ppg, 2 PF's capable of a double double, a top draft pick coming, cap space, and a TPE. The team is currently the 4th youngest in the league - maybe lower if you take out Evans. People make this team out to be the Cavaliers. Say what you want about BC but whether he stays or not, this team has a bright future because of the moves he has made since the summer. Winning teams are seldom made without some losing seasons - see Presti's beginning in SEA/OKC, see Pritchard's beginning in POR. BC took a lottery team to an Atlantic Champsionship and a 20 game swing in an off-season. Unfortunately it led to a slightly better than average team the first 2 seasons and a mediocre at best after that. He is starting a full re-build from the ground up, properly this time with young players, a high draft pick, cap space, and a TPE to top it off.

    I am excited and extremely optimistic of the future.

    Comment


    • #47
      Tim W. wrote: View Post
      Well, first of all Mos Def never built the Blazers. Plus, he was REALLY annoying in 16 Blocks, mostly because of his nasally voice. What was the deal with that?
      You guys are hilarious.
      Eh follow my TWITTER!

      Comment


      • #48
        Employee wrote: View Post
        Explain your reasoning good sir! I know he's a got some attitude problems but he built that Blazers team that's been injury plagued to boot.
        it's more a vibe thing than anything tangible, really...i just get the impression that he thinks of himself as a pretty important dude (like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcech3F-FvI).

        i do respect what he did with the blazers, but the fact of the matter remains, the jury's still out on same major decisions. 2 out of his last 3 MAJOR picks could have serious long term health issues, and it's not like these were secrets at the time. LA was a great pick, and i guess his extension is reasonable, at least based on his play of late. roy looked pretty good last night, quite fluid in his movement, and he didn't seem to be favouring his knee (or be limited by it), but going forward, if they could unload his contract, i don't think they'd bat an eyelash at doing so.

        it's one thing to note the success the team has had despite injuries, but he's the guy who acquired those injury-prone guys in the first place, and like i said, their injury-prone-ness wasn't a secret. i also think he started to fall in love with 'his guys,' perpetually over-valuing them, or thinking that they were significantly better than they really are...but also loading up the team so it was hard to give guys consistent minutes. it's like having a car collection - you can only drive one at a time, so it's great if you have 3 BMWs, a porsche, a benz, a land rover, 2 caddies & a lexus...but if the objective is to drive them, having that many is just a waste (unless you really get off on looking at them sitting in the garage).

        i guess i just get the feeling that he's a BC-like BMOC, and i wonder how a personality like that would do in a situation like the raps.
        TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.

        Comment


        • #49
          If you call 8/9/10/11/12 million dollar contract from 2010/11 through 2014/15 for a player of Bargnani's abilities and 25 years of age (i.e. hitting his prime in the next year or two) a big or large contact, I suggest you look around the payrolls of the NBA. I would also suggest instead of bashing Bargnani for what he can't do, look at what he can. Imagine a PG who can stop his own man and a SF similar to Josh Smith (i.e. who can rebound and defend)
          It's more than Lamar Odom although Odom is a far greater player. Bargnani is already surrounded by guys like Ed Davis and Amir Johnson, and he still hurts the team. He's the primary offensive option and the guy getting the most minutes at the 5. Here is the result so far:

          W-L: 17-47, Win %: .266, games behind conference leader: 30

          This isn't rocket science or brain surgery. They don't win with these guys. They don't win with Bargnani, Weems, DeRozan, Davis or the other interchangeable parts. No one on this Raptors squad is more than a 7th man on a winning team. Most of them couldn't get rotation time on any good team I can think of. If DeRozan was playing for the Bulls, he would polish the bench with his arse. He can't shoot and can't stop a sneeze. If he could do those things, the Raps would be winning more than 26% of their games.

          If DD keeps going as is, next year he will most likely be 'the man' and Bargnani becomes the second option to him (barring an amazing drafted rookie or trade, I hope this plays out). He is not a franchise player and he is not paid like one. The Raptors need a couple of legit of NBA studs - some of who may develop through DD or ED.
          I encourage you to look into the idea that bad players develop into good ones by checking the Player Efficiency Ratings of great players in their second years, and comparing them to DeRozan's. You aren't going to like what you see. PER isn't a perfect stat, so check all the other advanced stats (don't insult yourself by using points per game as a measuring stick). Use Dean Oliver's stats too if you want. Without exception, every player comes into the NBA with a block of talent that will never change. Their bodies will decline, and they will learn more about the speed of the game and the offensive/defensive systems they face. They will refine their shooting a bit. But the talent is what it is. That cannot be changed. It is written into their DNA and is a part of who and what they are.

          Michael Jordan's rookie PER: 25.8, Win Shares: 14.0
          Clyde Drexler's sophomore PER: 19.7, Win Shares: 7.5
          Mitch Richmond's rookie PER: 17.2, Win Shares: 5.6
          George "Iceman" Gervin's sophomore PER: 21.7, Win Shares: 7.3
          Paul Pierce's sophomore PER: 19.8, Win Shares: 8.2
          Rolando Blackman's sophomore PER: 17.0, Win Shares: 5.7
          Grant Hill's sophomore PER: 20.9, Win Shares: 11.7
          Latrell Sprewell's sophomore PER: 15.9, Win Shares: 8.0
          Dwyane Wade's sophomore PER: 23.1, Win Shares: 11.0
          ************************************************

          DeMar DeRozan's sophomore PER: 13.9, Win Shares: 2.5

          Even players who weren't terribly productive, such as Blackman, Richmond, and Sprewell, were still much better than DeRozan by this time in their NBA careers. There are a few examples of modestly useful players who took more time to develop into contributors. Dan Majerle, Jason Richardson, and Joe Dumars come to mind. But in each of those cases, they were great defenders and could shoot from long range. Things DDR can't do. Majerle really had no basketball skills at all. He couldn't dribble, couldn't pass and had no instinct for the game. He was still a more productive player than DeRozan.

          I think players can slightly adjust their effectiveness with practice and experience, but I think the improvement is relative to the amount of talent they had to begin with. A guy like DeRozan cannot and will not turn into another Grant Hill. To use numbers to illustrate the point, let's say each player has a talent figure from 0 to 100. 50 is an average player. Michael Jordan was immediately the best player in the NBA from the first minute he played in the league -- at the age of 21, DeRozan's age now. So let's say Jordan entered the league with a 95 and through hard work and experience increased it to 100. Similarly, a guy like DeRozan, who might have a 50 coming in, can, through years of experience and hard work, get to a 55. I think some people believe, in defiance of observed reality, that a 50 could improve to a 75 or 80. Not going to happen. Cannot happen. Impossible.

          This is why, as you point out, I look at what these guys can't do. Because they'll never be able to do what the team needs them to be able to do. Jordan, at the age of 21, would have this team in the race for the 8th playoff seed. The group they have now doesn't make any difference against the rest of the league. And except for Ed Davis, who looks good so far, they never will. Davis is a good complementary forward. He can't get his own shot. He can't produce double-digit wins.

          I agree that the Raps "need a couple of legit of NBA studs". Unfortunately, this group ain't it. They could all leave and it wouldn't make a difference to me. And here's why:

          W-L: 17-47, Win %: .266, games behind conference leader: 30

          Comment


          • #50
            Brandon wrote: View Post
            It's more than Lamar Odom although Odom is a far greater player. Bargnani is already surrounded by guys like Ed Davis and Amir Johnson, and he still hurts the team. He's the primary offensive option and the guy getting the most minutes at the 5. Here is the result so far:

            W-L: 17-47, Win %: .266, games behind conference leader: 30

            This isn't rocket science or brain surgery. They don't win with these guys. They don't win with Bargnani, Weems, DeRozan, Davis or the other interchangeable parts. No one on this Raptors squad is more than a 7th man on a winning team. Most of them couldn't get rotation time on any good team I can think of. If DeRozan was playing for the Bulls, he would polish the bench with his arse. He can't shoot and can't stop a sneeze. If he could do those things, the Raps would be winning more than 26% of their games.



            I encourage you to look into the idea that bad players develop into good ones by checking the Player Efficiency Ratings of great players in their second years, and comparing them to DeRozan's. You aren't going to like what you see. PER isn't a perfect stat, so check all the other advanced stats (don't insult yourself by using points per game as a measuring stick). Use Dean Oliver's stats too if you want. Without exception, every player comes into the NBA with a block of talent that will never change. Their bodies will decline, and they will learn more about the speed of the game and the offensive/defensive systems they face. They will refine their shooting a bit. But the talent is what it is. That cannot be changed. It is written into their DNA and is a part of who and what they are.

            Michael Jordan's rookie PER: 25.8, Win Shares: 14.0
            Clyde Drexler's sophomore PER: 19.7, Win Shares: 7.5
            Mitch Richmond's rookie PER: 17.2, Win Shares: 5.6
            George "Iceman" Gervin's sophomore PER: 21.7, Win Shares: 7.3
            Paul Pierce's sophomore PER: 19.8, Win Shares: 8.2
            Rolando Blackman's sophomore PER: 17.0, Win Shares: 5.7
            Grant Hill's sophomore PER: 20.9, Win Shares: 11.7
            Latrell Sprewell's sophomore PER: 15.9, Win Shares: 8.0
            Dwyane Wade's sophomore PER: 23.1, Win Shares: 11.0
            ************************************************

            DeMar DeRozan's sophomore PER: 13.9, Win Shares: 2.5

            Even players who weren't terribly productive, such as Blackman, Richmond, and Sprewell, were still much better than DeRozan by this time in their NBA careers. There are a few examples of modestly useful players who took more time to develop into contributors. Dan Majerle, Jason Richardson, and Joe Dumars come to mind. But in each of those cases, they were great defenders and could shoot from long range. Things DDR can't do. Majerle really had no basketball skills at all. He couldn't dribble, couldn't pass and had no instinct for the game. He was still a more productive player than DeRozan.

            I think players can slightly adjust their effectiveness with practice and experience, but I think the improvement is relative to the amount of talent they had to begin with. A guy like DeRozan cannot and will not turn into another Grant Hill. To use numbers to illustrate the point, let's say each player has a talent figure from 0 to 100. 50 is an average player. Michael Jordan was immediately the best player in the NBA from the first minute he played in the league -- at the age of 21, DeRozan's age now. So let's say Jordan entered the league with a 95 and through hard work and experience increased it to 100. Similarly, a guy like DeRozan, who might have a 50 coming in, can, through years of experience and hard work, get to a 55. I think some people believe, in defiance of observed reality, that a 50 could improve to a 75 or 80. Not going to happen. Cannot happen. Impossible.

            This is why, as you point out, I look at what these guys can't do. Because they'll never be able to do what the team needs them to be able to do. Jordan, at the age of 21, would have this team in the race for the 8th playoff seed. The group they have now doesn't make any difference against the rest of the league. And except for Ed Davis, who looks good so far, they never will. Davis is a good complementary forward. He can't get his own shot. He can't produce double-digit wins.

            I agree that the Raps "need a couple of legit of NBA studs". Unfortunately, this group ain't it. They could all leave and it wouldn't make a difference to me. And here's why:

            W-L: 17-47, Win %: .266, games behind conference leader: 30
            Brandon, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion as am I. I respect your stance although I disagree with it on so many levels I do not know where to begin.

            Your stats and focus on the here and now totally neglects development of players and future acquisitions. The great thing about stats is that you can get them to show whatever you want. But to enlighten your stance on teh stats, why not go find the PER stats of all those players listed when they were 21. The problem you'll have is most of them were still in their junior year of college not in their second year of the NBA - apples and oranges my friend, different eras and different style of game. Me, I like to watch basketball games now that I can no longer play, not crunch numbers (except salary cap numbers). What I see from watching 20 years of NBA ball is promise.

            SEA/OKC went 20-62 the first year with Durant and Green, 23-59 the second year while adding Westbrook. Your expectations are extremely unrealistic in my opinion. If you want to develop a team that can be competitive for many seasons, a little bit of patience and suffering is required. Even Boston had two horrible years, with Paul Pierce, before putting a couple of trades together to get what they have now.

            To end, if all the players could leave and it wouldn't affect you, maybe you should look for a new team to cheer.

            Comment


            • #51
              yertu damkule wrote: View Post
              it's more a vibe thing than anything tangible, really...i just get the impression that he thinks of himself as a pretty important dude (like this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcech3F-FvI).

              i do respect what he did with the blazers, but the fact of the matter remains, the jury's still out on same major decisions. 2 out of his last 3 MAJOR picks could have serious long term health issues, and it's not like these were secrets at the time. LA was a great pick, and i guess his extension is reasonable, at least based on his play of late. roy looked pretty good last night, quite fluid in his movement, and he didn't seem to be favouring his knee (or be limited by it), but going forward, if they could unload his contract, i don't think they'd bat an eyelash at doing so.

              it's one thing to note the success the team has had despite injuries, but he's the guy who acquired those injury-prone guys in the first place, and like i said, their injury-prone-ness wasn't a secret. i also think he started to fall in love with 'his guys,' perpetually over-valuing them, or thinking that they were significantly better than they really are...but also loading up the team so it was hard to give guys consistent minutes. it's like having a car collection - you can only drive one at a time, so it's great if you have 3 BMWs, a porsche, a benz, a land rover, 2 caddies & a lexus...but if the objective is to drive them, having that many is just a waste (unless you really get off on looking at them sitting in the garage).

              i guess i just get the feeling that he's a BC-like BMOC, and i wonder how a personality like that would do in a situation like the raps.
              Yeah I think the Roy pick was a solid gamble. But the contract extension is really gonna hurt them. But there would have been a whole lot of other teams that woulda paid that money if the Blazers didn't and I think his back was against the wall.

              It always seemed he schooled the sh*t outta people on draft day. Fun to watch.
              Eh follow my TWITTER!

              Comment


              • #52
                Matt52 wrote: View Post
                Brandon, you are most certainly entitled to your opinion as am I. I respect your stance although I disagree with it on so many levels I do not know where to begin.

                Your stats and focus on the here and now totally neglects development of players and future acquisitions. The great thing about stats is that you can get them to show whatever you want. But to enlighten your stance on teh stats, why not go find the PER stats of all those players listed when they were 21. The problem you'll have is most of them were still in their junior year of college not in their second year of the NBA - apples and oranges my friend, different eras and different style of game. Me, I like to watch basketball games now that I can no longer play, not crunch numbers (except salary cap numbers). What I see from watching 20 years of NBA ball is promise.
                Players didn't and don't prepare for NBA careers by playing college ball. They prepare by playing NBA ball. Age is irrelevant. Talent is all.

                Matt52 wrote: View Post
                SEA/OKC went 20-62 the first year with Durant and Green, 23-59 the second year while adding Westbrook. Your expectations are extremely unrealistic in my opinion. If you want to develop a team that can be competitive for many seasons, a little bit of patience and suffering is required. Even Boston had two horrible years, with Paul Pierce, before putting a couple of trades together to get what they have now.
                I don't think you really want to compare numbers between the current Raps squad and the OKC squad, because by the time Westbrook was in his sophomore year OKC was up to 50 wins and 9th in SRS in the entire league.

                Oh wait, I forgot. You already said you're not interested in numbers, or stats, because they can be used to counter your arguments with objective evidence. And we can't have that.

                Matt52 wrote: View Post
                To end, if all the players could leave and it wouldn't affect you, maybe you should look for a new team to cheer.
                I do follow other teams. I enjoy seeing the game played well, by winners. The Raps organization are losers. The one time they had a team that could contend for a title (Vinsanity, T-Mac and Camby) they broke it up and forced the players out as fast as they could arrange it. I could delude myself to the alarming degree you have, into thinking that bad players are great when they aren't, or that 6 years into a guy's career he can all of a sudden by great when he was a benchwarmer up to that point (never, ever happened in history. Not even one time).

                If, in two years, the Raps are a winning team again, none of these guys, except maybe Ed Davis, will be a significant part of it. They'll either be gone, or riding the end of the pine. And if you get rid of them, especially the biggest contracts, the Raps could bring in some prime movers. All-NBA types, stars, whatever you want to call them. But I don't think that will happen until this disturbingly bad organization gets A) A new owner, and B) a new gm. And then the new blood really needs to clean house. There's a reason Jerry Buss has won all of those titles, while that miserable scumbag Donald Sterling hasn't. Good organizations produce good teams with good coaches and good players consistently. Bad ones do the opposite.

                When I watch this team I'm appalled by what I see. And the organization's rhetoric about the players is even worse than the on-court product. The absurd euphemisms they use to describe these bad players, like "Has loads of potential", "He didn't get enough playing time", "This is a very young team", "He needs to be more consistent", on and on. They try to hide the truth, that these guys aren't good enough and never will be.

                I empathize with the ball players, most of whom should be benchwarmers elsewhere, and are instead thrown into a situation where they're embarrassing themselves playing heavy minutes against superior talent...while the ownership feeds bulldink like "They just need more time to mesh with their teammates" to the fans and laughs all the way to the bank.

                ************************************************** *************************

                Short list of 19 euphemisms used by sports commentators to distract from a bad sports product:

                Has loads of potential := Isn't very good. An interchangeable part on the team. Player makes no difference on the court.
                Needs to improve his [...] skills := Can't do [...] or much of anything else. Interchangeable part.
                Needs to improve his work ethic := He's lazy, and makes no difference on the court.
                Reminds me a lot of [insert legendary player here] := He's one of the worst players on the team, and we're going to distract you from that fact by comparing him to a player much better than he'll ever be.
                He didn't get enough playing time := He sucks. He's a benchwarmer. He played behind better players, which could be a bad sign as most NBA players aren't very good.
                There are areas of his game that could improve := He sucks. He always will suck. Professional benchwarmer.
                He was great when he played with Steve Nash := That's because Nash fed him easy passes and his numbers were padded. He's an interchangeable part.
                Needs to work on his [offense/defense] := One-dimensional player. Makes no difference because of lack of 2-way abilities. Never will be a 2-way player.
                He was drafted very high := Draft position is brought up when a player isn't good enough. No one talks about how Lebron was the #1 pick.
                Battled injury issues := Excuse for why, when he was on the court, he made no difference and was an interchangeable part.
                He's got a ways to go := He's an interchangeable part who's not good enough, and in 99% of the cases he never will be.
                This is a very young team := This is a losing team that's likely getting blown out by 25 or more every night. It's ugly, and so here's an excuse for why.
                He is an Outstanding talent := He's an underachiever who doesn't make a difference on the court.
                I'm convinced if you provide better [...] that he is a 'solution' player in a winning environment. := That's because he can't, by himself, make enough of a difference to produce wins for the team by himself.
                He's a heck of an athlete := This is often said about players who can run and jump. They can't shoot, pass, dribble, or be generally productive.
                He was highly regarded coming out of [high school/college] := He's failed to meet expectations and is a disappointment. He will never be more than a rotation player/benchwarmer.
                He just needs the right coach := He sucks. He's a benchwarmer, and possibly a problem in the locker room.
                He needs to be more consistent := He sucks. An interchangeable part on the team. Player makes no difference on the court.
                He just needs time to mesh with his teammates := Because either he doesn't fit in well with his current team, or he was overrated to begin with.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Brandon,

                  I sense quite a bit of bitterness, but I have to say I disagree with a lot of what you said, starting with college ball apparently not preparing players for the NBA. How long have you followed the NBA? Long enough to notice the dropoff in rookie play from 20-25 years ago, when players came into the NBA much more polished and ready to contribute? One of the things I liked about raising the minimum age was because I was sick of seeing high school players come in and fumble around for 4 or 5 years before they "get it". I'd love to see it raised to 20, quite frankly, because the level of play coming into the league nowadays is still so poor. I think very highly of both DeRozan and Davis, but both of them could have used at least another year in college before hitting the NBA. If I was fortunate to live in a city with an NBA team, again, I'd rather watch players learn how to win than develop and then learn how to win.

                  As for your euphemisms, I look at it like the When Harry Met Sally line:

                  "Look, if you would ask me, "What does she look like?" and I said, "She
                  has a good personality." That means she's not attractive. But just because I
                  happened to mention that she has a good personality, she could be either. She
                  could be attractive with a good personality, or not attractive with a good
                  personality."
                  Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                  Follow me on Twitter.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Brandon, are you serious?

                    Firstly, your point on the Raptors having no players who would start on a contending team. That is just dumb, if we did have players who would start on the contending team we would at least be in the playoffs. But rebuilding involves taking young inexperienced players and giving them minutes to mature, and hopefully fulfill their potential.

                    And if you're not a Raptor fan, why are you on this forum? Honestly, this year we've been playing pretty enjoyable basketball compared to last year. And obviously it's only in stretches, but you can see this team can develop into something better. Right now we have the really good PF, Ed Davis is just really great, and Amir Johnson is the kind of guy that will just make you smile when you watch him play. We have a franchise SG who has been improving steadily and is only 21. We have Bargnani who is a 'special' player, who obviously doesn't play much D, if any, and is a poor rebounder, but he still has his qualities, and is only 25. Add to that we have a ton of cap-room, TPE, high draft picks and a lot of young players. Now unless you think teams become 50-win teams after a year of rebuilding, you should know that it takes time.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Brandon wrote: View Post
                      Players didn't and don't prepare for NBA careers by playing college ball. They prepare by playing NBA ball. Age is irrelevant. Talent is all.
                      So high school doesn't prepare for college. And middle school or junior high doesn't prepare for high school. And elementary doesn't preapre for middle. And walking doesn't prepare for running. And crawling certainly doesn't prepare for walking.

                      Seriously?

                      I don't think you really want to compare numbers between the current Raps squad and the OKC squad, because by the time Westbrook was in his sophomore year OKC was up to 50 wins and 9th in SRS in the entire league.

                      Oh wait, I forgot. You already said you're not interested in numbers, or stats, because they can be used to counter your arguments with objective evidence. And we can't have that.
                      Actually, it is a pretty good comparision. When SEA was in the same position, just missing playoffs after making it, they drafted Sene (10 I believe). TOR missed the playoffs two consecutive years and draftd 9 and 13, DD and Davis. SEA traded their best player (Lewis) for a TPE and a 2nd round draft pick; TOR traded Bosh for a TPE and 2 first round picks. SEA stunk up the league and drafted Durant and traded their last good player (Allen) for Green who is a very good player. This is the stage TOR is at now - stinking up the league and getting their first high draft pick. Hopefully TOR gets a franchise player such as Durant. Even with him SEA stunk it up again and drafted another, arguably, franchise player in Westbrook - only to stink it up for another season and draft 3rd overall to get Harden. TOR is another two full seasons away from being in this situation - just to squeak in to the 8th seed in the playoffs. During those two seasons they also made trades that used the financial flexibility they had to their benefit - TOR has not quite done that yet. There was a lot of patience and pain that went in to creating the OKC Thunder as currently constructed. It is a shame the Raps are not afforded the same luxury of time and the opportunity to develop and grow from within and through the draft.

                      So you are correct, TOR is not a very good comparison because they are 3 years behind in terms of development that SEA/OKC has had.

                      Stats are misleading when you are not comparing apples to apples.


                      I do follow other teams. I enjoy seeing the game played well, by winners. The Raps organization are losers. The one time they had a team that could contend for a title (Vinsanity, T-Mac and Camby) they broke it up and forced the players out as fast as they could arrange it. I could delude myself to the alarming degree you have, into thinking that bad players are great when they aren't, or that 6 years into a guy's career he can all of a sudden by great when he was a benchwarmer up to that point (never, ever happened in history. Not even one time).

                      If, in two years, the Raps are a winning team again, none of these guys, except maybe Ed Davis, will be a significant part of it. They'll either be gone, or riding the end of the pine. And if you get rid of them, especially the biggest contracts, the Raps could bring in some prime movers. All-NBA types, stars, whatever you want to call them. But I don't think that will happen until this disturbingly bad organization gets A) A new owner, and B) a new gm. And then the new blood really needs to clean house. There's a reason Jerry Buss has won all of those titles, while that miserable scumbag Donald Sterling hasn't. Good organizations produce good teams with good coaches and good players consistently. Bad ones do the opposite.

                      When I watch this team I'm appalled by what I see. And the organization's rhetoric about the players is even worse than the on-court product. The absurd euphemisms they use to describe these bad players, like "Has loads of potential", "He didn't get enough playing time", "This is a very young team", "He needs to be more consistent", on and on. They try to hide the truth, that these guys aren't good enough and never will be.

                      I empathize with the ball players, most of whom should be benchwarmers elsewhere, and are instead thrown into a situation where they're embarrassing themselves playing heavy minutes against superior talent...while the ownership feeds bulldink like "They just need more time to mesh with their teammates" to the fans and laughs all the way to the bank.
                      Why are you here?
                      Last edited by mcHAPPY; Fri Mar 11, 2011, 10:34 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Tim W. wrote: View Post
                        Brandon,

                        I sense quite a bit of bitterness, but I have to say I disagree with a lot of what you said, starting with college ball apparently not preparing players for the NBA. How long have you followed the NBA? Long enough to notice the dropoff in rookie play from 20-25 years ago, when players came into the NBA much more polished and ready to contribute? One of the things I liked about raising the minimum age was because I was sick of seeing high school players come in and fumble around for 4 or 5 years before they "get it". I'd love to see it raised to 20, quite frankly, because the level of play coming into the league nowadays is still so poor. I think very highly of both DeRozan and Davis, but both of them could have used at least another year in college before hitting the NBA. If I was fortunate to live in a city with an NBA team, again, I'd rather watch players learn how to win than develop and then learn how to win.

                        As for your euphemisms, I look at it like the When Harry Met Sally line:

                        "Look, if you would ask me, "What does she look like?" and I said, "She
                        has a good personality." That means she's not attractive. But just because I
                        happened to mention that she has a good personality, she could be either. She
                        could be attractive with a good personality, or not attractive with a good
                        personality."
                        Tim, I respect your analyses and your intelligence, but I think you should look at losing your college religion. The key formative period for young people is between the ages, of, say, 5 and 14. A young person could benefit from formal training during those years. By the time they're college age, they're already 90% of what they'll ever be. College years didn't help J.J. Redick in the NBA. He is in his prime and is only a rotation player, and in his first couple of years was only a benchwarmer. Players who successfully jumped from high school to the NBA:
                        Moses Malone, Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, T-Mac, Lebron James, Jermaine O'Neal, Dwight Howard et al.
                        Complete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_high_school_draftees

                        There are also lots of failures, like Bassy Telfair. But the point is, why are there so many successes if college is important? Why didn't four years at Duke turn J.J. Redick into a good NBA player? He's a legendary Duke star, but he's a back-end-of-the-rotation guy in the NBA. It's simple: not enough talent. He's not good enough and he never will be. Guys like James and KB24 are made in the womb, not manufactured (obviously I'm expressing a heavy belief in biological determinism here). And those are the kinds of guys you need to win championships.

                        College doesn't prepare and refine players for NBA competition. It teaches them that they're infallible, untouchable super-heroes because they play a slower game than they're capable of against vastly inferior talent. You think Carmelo Anthony was pushed at Syracuse? Spoiled, yes. Not pushed. Everybody's bigger, stronger and faster in the big leagues. You can't get away with the same things in the NBA that you can in college.

                        Three years of heavy minutes as the primary scoring option in college didn't help Harold "Baby Jordan" Miner become an NBA talent. He was drafted 12th in the first round, 12 spots higher than Latrell Sprewell. By age 24 he was out of the league. Uncomfortable comparison:
                        Code:
                        Name	Season	Age	Tm	Lg	G	GS	MP	FG	FGA	FG%	3P	3PA	3P%	FT	FTA	FT%	ORB	DRB	TRB	AST	STL	BLK	TOV	PF	PTS
                        DeRozan	2010-11	21	TOR	NBA	64	64	2211	6.6	14.1	0.467	0	0.5	0.094	4	5	0.803	1	2.9	3.9	1.9	0.9	0.4	1.7	3	17.2
                        Miner	1993-94	22	MIA	NBA	63	31	1358	6.7	14.1	0.477	0.1	0.2	0.667	3.9	4.8	0.828	2	2.1	4.1	2.5	0.8	0.3	2.5	3.5	17.5
                        To be fair to DDR, nobody bothered to defend Miner. If the ball was in his hands it was enough to let him beat himself. DDR is more often defended. But the numbers speak for themselves. I do believe DDR is a better player than Miner.

                        Rather than being called "bitter" (tone is difficult to get across in writing), I prefer to see myself as a skeptic. I mean look at the post beneath yours, Tim. It looks like it could have been written by a paid Raptors propagandist. With all due respect to the one who posted it, it's exactly the kind of thing you hear from the talking heads when you watch a Raptors game. They're paid to say those things. Their loyalty to those views is based on money first, not honesty.

                        Tim, since you have admitted that you think "very highly" of DeRozan, I challenge you to produce for me at least 5 swingmen in NBA history who were bad, below-average statistically, and who couldn't shoot long-range and couldn't defend in their first two years and then became significant contributors (starters) on winning teams by the time they hit their athletic prime, say, age 25-28.

                        BTW, I sincerely hope that Ed Davis reaches his ceiling, which in my opinion is what Joakim Noah is now. The Raps could really, really, really [repeat 250 times] really use that kind of player.

                        Matt52, I am criticizing the organization. If I didn't care about the issue, I wouldn't bother. I don't bother offering opinions on Detroit Pistons boards, because I don't particularly care if they suck. Plenty of Toronto sports pundits have expressed similar opinions in the past couple of years, including Doug Smith and Bob McCown. Those two are paid to be skeptical and critical, not to toady to their bosses. As I said in the previous post, I empathize with the players, getting spanked every night by superior teams. It's not their fault that they and their teammates are "12th men on a good team" as Smith recently said about Weems. And, as McCown has said this season, "FIRE EVERYBODY!".

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Brandon wrote: View Post
                          Rather than being called "bitter" (tone is difficult to get across in writing), I prefer to see myself as a skeptic. I mean look at the post beneath yours, Tim. It looks like it could have been written by a paid Raptors propagandist. With all due respect to the one who posted it, it's exactly the kind of thing you hear from the talking heads when you watch a Raptors game. They're paid to say those things. Their loyalty to those views is based on money first, not honesty.

                          Matt52, I am criticizing the organization. If I didn't care about the issue, I wouldn't bother. I don't bother offering opinions on Detroit Pistons boards, because I don't particularly care if they suck. Plenty of Toronto sports pundits have expressed similar opinions in the past couple of years, including Doug Smith and Bob McCown. Those two are paid to be skeptical and critical, not to toady to their bosses. As I said in the previous post, I empathize with the players, getting spanked every night by superior teams. It's not their fault that they and their teammates are "12th men on a good team" as Smith recently said about Weems. And, as McCown has said this season, "FIRE EVERYBODY!".
                          The Raptors are horrible right now. I came under fire for suggesting that in a post a few days ago. It doesn't take a quick look at the standings or watching a whole game to figure that out. Being skeptical and critical right now is not a hard thing to do because you see all the decisions that have been made in an effort to win, for the most part, have not worked out as intended - this is the benefit of hindsight. Being a armchair GM and blasting the organization is a lot easier for the likes of Doug Smith and Bob McGowan than looking at the positives. The opinions of many in the media, including Smith and McGowan, are formed in the same manner as someone driving a car looking in the rearview mirror. They are not looking in to the future and they do not care or factor in future growth or development in their discussion. They jump on the bandwagon along with everyone else because it is a lot easier to be wrong with everyone else than go against the masses and be wrong. Right now the 'negative Raptor' bandwagon is loaded to capacity.

                          I guess we have a difference of opinion and way of looking at things - which is fine.

                          Personally, I think it is much more difficult to find the positives but they are there. Fire everybody, not being bothered if the entire team was gone, and no one on the team is better than 7th on a contender are easy comments to stand by because the Raps are 17-47 right now. To look through the rubble and find pieces of value is what this season is about. The Raps are 8 months in to a total rebuild. Everyone wants a competitive and winning team around here but few understand the pain required to get there - BOS, LAL, SAS, OKC, CHI, ORL all went through difficult times to get to where they are today with their current teams.

                          One man's trash is another man's treasure. Your trash has a few treasure's in my eyes.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Larry Bird Done In Indy?

                            Source: NYpost.com

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X