Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are Kemba Walker and Jerryd Bayless redundant?

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

  • footarez
    replied
    Quixotic wrote: View Post
    Because it's so much better to base such decisions on small samples of "black and white" individual performance. By the way, our team was 1.121 offensive ppp and 1.022 defensive ppp when David Andersen was on the floor. Without him, we were 1.067 offensive ppp and 1.146 defensive ppp. Plus, he held opposing centers to a defensive stopper worthy 13.0 PER.

    I'm going to thank myself for showing black and white how amazing Andersen was, especially since I used team and not individual performance. If our team doesn't re-acquire him immediately and lock him up long term as our center of the future, no wonder our team sucks.
    It is a good thing there is no "tone" in written language or I might have considered your "tone" for offending However now looking at those stats and thinking it through I agree with you that we actually don't have enough to compare them (Bayless and Calderon) but given the fact that Calderon makes SO MUCH more $ than Bayless makes Bayless look better as our future PG.That's my opinion.I judge the game not only on stats but on their checks and on what I see of them on the court...like effort,DEFENSE,attitude,listening to the coach(now,if the coach sucks that is another topic ) and trying to do the things you're asked to.All things that I believe a winning team's PG should have.So Bayless would be my choice..over Calderon and over Kemba..or other draft prospects.
    As for David Andersen..he should have been our franchise player if Bargnani was the one this season.Am i joking?

    Leave a comment:


  • Quixotic
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    The financial numbers are usually what causes the issues in trades in the NBA. If each team is addressing the needs of their team, then 3,4,5 teams shouldn't make a difference. Obviously 4 team trades are uncommon but they are not impossible if everyone feels they are bettering their own team. BOS/MIA/UTA/NOH in 2005, ORL/NJ/TOR/DAL in 2008, IND/ATL/NOH/MIA last year are off the top of my head. A little further checking and PHX/SEA/NYK/LAL in 2000. Colangelo was involved in 2 and he was involved in an 8 player deal, three team deal as well.

    You raise a good point on the lottery pick but with Irving, DD, ED, and Kanter in the starting lineup and Garcia/JJ/Amir on the bench, a starting SF is the only position of need and there are going to be a number of good SF's available next year. Also, the 4 team deal would not require any further incentive for SAC, in my opinion.
    Yeah, sorry, that's not what I meant about headache. I'm fluent with cap-related issues, but just don't want to bother thinking about whether it makes sense for more than 3 teams. It doesn't seem like much until you factor in the billion trade suggestions and rumors each year.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Quixotic wrote: View Post
    Haha, not sure how remembering that "key" helps. Besides, four-team trades happen so rarely in real life, it's almost total fantasy land. =P

    I guess it's a deal then? I guess as a Raptors fan I would do it too, but you never know if it'll come back to bite us in the ass. If we're still a high lottery pick in the next two years and Sacramento isn't, we might be wishing we had that top 4 pick rather than their late lottery.
    The financial numbers are usually what causes the issues in trades in the NBA. If each team is addressing the needs of their team, then 3,4,5 teams shouldn't make a difference. Obviously 4 team trades are uncommon but they are not impossible if everyone feels they are bettering their own team. BOS/MIA/UTA/NOH in 2005, ORL/NJ/TOR/DAL in 2008, IND/ATL/NOH/MIA last year are off the top of my head. A little further checking and PHX/SEA/NYK/LAL in 2000. Colangelo was involved in 2 and he was involved in an 8 player deal, three team deal as well.

    You raise a good point on the lottery pick but with Irving, DD, ED, and Kanter in the starting lineup and Garcia/JJ/Amir on the bench, a starting SF is the only position of need and there are going to be a number of good SF's available next year. Also, the 4 team deal would not require any further incentive for SAC, in my opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quixotic
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    The four team trade is pretty straight-forward - the key is to always remember salaries going out and coming back must always be within 125% + 100K plus any available cap space for teams with a payroll under $58M.


    I'd go for anything that delivered Kanter and Irving while keeping ED, DD, and Amir and a 2012 first round pick including swapping picks with SAC.
    Haha, not sure how remembering that "key" helps. Besides, four-team trades happen so rarely in real life, it's almost total fantasy land. =P

    I guess it's a deal then? I guess as a Raptors fan I would do it too, but you never know if it'll come back to bite us in the ass. If we're still a high lottery pick in the next two years and Sacramento isn't, we might be wishing we had that top 4 pick rather than their late lottery.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quixotic
    replied
    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    Uh, I'm the sarcastic one with the condescending attitude around here, thank you.
    Right, right, I forgot.

    *slinks away*

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Quixotic wrote: View Post
    Anything larger than a three-team trade hurts my head, so I think I'll pass on that one.

    The #1 reason the three-team trade wouldn't work is because Tim W. and I have already agreed that Bargnani needs to be traded to the Hornets, after which they'll promptly move to Vancouver.

    Seriously though, I don't need to bother with the Toronto aspect (except I don't think Kanter will be around at #5), and the Minnesota aspect (in the Shantz tweak) looks fine/realistic. I'm balking a bit at the Sacramento portion though (if I'm reading it correctly, I'm trading the 5th overall pick, Thompson, Casspi and Garcia, and getting back Bargnani, Bayless, the 20th overall pick and Webster). Not because I think it's unreasonable, but because most GMs prefer their own prospects to someone else's. As a Raptors fan, I have high hope for Bayless, but as a non-Raptors fan, I think I'd try to eek a bit more out of Toronto, like the right to swap picks in either the 2012 or 2013 draft, my choice. Would you, as the Raptors GM, go for that? =P
    The four team trade is pretty straight-forward - the key is to always remember salaries going out and coming back must always be within 125% + 100K plus any available cap space for teams with a payroll under $58M.


    I'd go for anything that delivered Kanter and Irving while keeping ED, DD, and Amir and a 2012 first round pick including swapping picks with SAC.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim W.
    replied
    Uh, I'm the sarcastic one with the condescending attitude around here, thank you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quixotic
    replied
    j bean wrote: View Post
    As a Raptors fan I enjoy a post that brings a different line of thought or an opposing argument to what I think and quite often I'm persuaded to change my view on things when I hear something that makes a lot of sense. To me using stats really isn't the most compelling way of doing that though of course they have a place. I posted the Calderone-
    Bayless comparison stats because I was surprised when I first saw them at how in every category except assists Bayless was better as a starter. Way more trips to the stripe, way more points, more efficient shooting and less turnovers. True it was only 14 games but having watched all of those games it was obvious to me that Jose had become boring and it was exciting to see a young guy like Bayless play at a higher level.
    By the way I love your sarcasm and a condescending attitude. It really makes you appear more convincing.
    Sometimes the wall of text method gets a bit boring. Sarcasm and condescending attitude saves me from having to write a novella, and saves you all from having to read it. :-p

    Did you enjoy this one better:
    http://raptorsrepublic.com/forums/sh...ll=1#post82290

    As I said before, I like Bayless. I was very high on getting him from the Hornets. I consider him part of our young core. But you can always find small samples of stats to show any one player is better than another.
    Last edited by Quixotic; Sat May 14, 2011, 12:32 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • j bean
    replied
    Quixotic wrote: View Post
    Because it's so much better to base such decisions on small samples of "black and white" individual performance. By the way, our team was 1.121 offensive ppp and 1.022 defensive ppp when David Andersen was on the floor. Without him, we were 1.067 offensive ppp and 1.146 defensive ppp. Plus, he held opposing centers to a defensive stopper worthy 13.0 PER.

    I'm going to thank myself for showing black and white how amazing Andersen was, especially since I used team and not individual performance. If our team doesn't re-acquire him immediately and lock him up long term as our center of the future, no wonder our team sucks.
    As a Raptors fan I enjoy a post that brings a different line of thought or an opposing argument to what I think and quite often I'm persuaded to change my view on things when I hear something that makes a lot of sense. To me using stats really isn't the most compelling way of doing that though of course they have a place. I posted the Calderone-
    Bayless comparison stats because I was surprised when I first saw them at how in every category except assists Bayless was better as a starter. Way more trips to the stripe, way more points, more efficient shooting and less turnovers. True it was only 14 games but having watched all of those games it was obvious to me that Jose had become boring and it was exciting to see a young guy like Bayless play at a higher level.
    By the way I love your sarcasm and a condescending attitude. It really makes you appear more convincing.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quixotic
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    While a Raps fan, and I most definitely have put a couple of trades in the Trade Forum that were Raptors-biased, I do try to stay as impartial as possible and I do attempt to look at the moves from the things you mentioned (cap space, payroll, future outlook).

    I think the trade I suggested, Shantz tweak, and a subsequent four team trade (TOR/MIN/SAC/DEN) that I just added are all reasonable for each team. If I am incorrect in this, feel free to offer input.
    Anything larger than a three-team trade hurts my head, so I think I'll pass on that one.

    The #1 reason the three-team trade wouldn't work is because Tim W. and I have already agreed that Bargnani needs to be traded to the Hornets, after which they'll promptly move to Vancouver.

    Seriously though, I don't need to bother with the Toronto aspect (except I don't think Kanter will be around at #5), and the Minnesota aspect (in the Shantz tweak) looks fine/realistic. I'm balking a bit at the Sacramento portion though (if I'm reading it correctly, I'm trading the 5th overall pick, Thompson, Casspi and Garcia, and getting back Bargnani, Bayless, the 20th overall pick and Webster). Not because I think it's unreasonable, but because most GMs prefer their own prospects to someone else's. As a Raptors fan, I have high hope for Bayless, but as a non-Raptors fan, I think I'd try to eek a bit more out of Toronto, like the right to swap picks in either the 2012 or 2013 draft, my choice. Would you, as the Raptors GM, go for that? =P
    Last edited by Quixotic; Fri May 13, 2011, 10:58 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Quixotic wrote: View Post
    A fun exercise though is to have different people represent different teams. They must get familiar with their team's payroll, cap outlook, etc., and they're not allowed to think about the trade in any sense other than whether they would do it for the team they're representing. Whenever I'm reading trade suggestions, I couldn't care less why the Raptors would do it. It's almost always a moot point.

    That said, you know your trade is a good one because Hollinger's trade machine thinks nobody benefits from it. I keed, I keed.
    While a Raps fan, and I most definitely have put a couple of trades in the Trade Forum that were Raptors-biased, I do try to stay as impartial as possible and I do attempt to look at the moves from the things you mentioned (cap space, payroll, future outlook).

    I think the trade I suggested, Shantz tweak, and a subsequent four team trade (TOR/MIN/SAC/DEN) that I just added are all reasonable for each team. If I am incorrect in this, feel free to offer input.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quixotic
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I came up with a trade in the Trade Forum and then Shantz tweaked it to make the improbable slightly more probable.

    I'll warn you though, it involves trading Calderon, lol.

    BTW, as useless and trivial as it is to try and come up with trades that will most likely never happen, this is even more useless and trivial until Tuesday.
    A fun exercise though is to have different people represent different teams. They must get familiar with their team's payroll, cap outlook, etc., and they're not allowed to think about the trade in any sense other than whether they would do it for the team they're representing. Whenever I'm reading trade suggestions, I couldn't care less why the Raptors would do it. It's almost always a moot point.

    That said, you know your trade is a good one because Hollinger's trade machine thinks nobody benefits from it. I keed, I keed.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeff_hostetler
    replied
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    BTW, as useless and trivial as it is to try and come up with trades that will most likely never happen, this is even more useless and trivial until Tuesday.
    That's basically why I gave up here.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcHAPPY
    replied
    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    If the Raptors can get Kanter AND Irving, I'd give up everyone but Davis, DeRozan and Amir. That would be sweet.
    I came up with a trade in the Trade Forum and then Shantz tweaked it to make the improbable slightly more probable.

    I'll warn you though, it involves trading Calderon, lol.

    BTW, as useless and trivial as it is to try and come up with trades that will most likely never happen, this is even more useless and trivial until Tuesday.
    Last edited by mcHAPPY; Fri May 13, 2011, 08:15 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Quixotic
    replied
    footarez wrote: View Post
    Great job.Thank you for showing black on white why and how better Bayless was.
    j bean wrote: View Post
    If BC was on board with trading Bargnani, Calderone and Kleiza that is a lot of salary and how can you swing it without bringing older players back?
    Uh, it was a hypothetical "I wish" scenario. it's going to be very, very difficult to trade someone who is injured and didn't exactly light it up when he was "healthy" (Kleiza). As for the other two, if we were certain we could land someone like Chris Paul, I don't think it would be very hard to dump them for nothing but salary relief (we almost traded Calderon for what could have been cap relief, lest you forget). It's just not in our best interest to do so with no guarantee of finding replacements via FA.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X