Bayless next contract?

[Joey]

Agreed. I don't see the light ever turning on with Bayless as a PG. He's had plenty of time to show the instincts needed to be an effective playmaker in the NBA, and he's shown the opposite. The numbers that people refer to from the end of last season are a mirage. Just watch him play. He's out of control, leaves his feet way too soon, and misses open men often. His offense is OK, but not even up to snuff for a starting SG.

At a QO of ~4M, I'd let him walk. Again, it's early and he's going to get lots of opportunity to change my mind this season, but from what I've seen so far, he's a borderline backup 2, with no business getting ANY minutes at the 1 on a competitive team.

I'm curious as to how the numbers from the end of last season are a Mirage?

Just because they go against the point that you are trying to make?

[NoPropsneeded]

after one preseason game you guys are bashing this dude like crazy. the nba just came out of a long lockout some players are going to be rusty, give him a couple more games. He'll shut you guys up

[planetmars]

I'm actually basing my opinion on last season and not just the one game. Bayless has a lot of potential, but he struggles at the most important quality (in my opinion) a PG needs - which is to help make everyone around him better. He also needs to be able to hit an open jump shot to keep the defense honest. Both of these qualities is what makes Chris Paul the best PG in the league.

If Calderon could start hitting his jump shot.. and improved his quickness (which I don't see happening), then he'd be an all-star. Unfortunately Calderon is hitting an age where he's going to just regress. Bayless could steal the starting spot from him, but he has not earned it yet (again in my opinion).

[jimmie]

I'm curious as to how the numbers from the end of last season are a Mirage?

Just because they go against the point that you are trying to make?

Yep, pretty much. (rolls eyes)

As I said, just watch the games. The numbers don't indicate how poorly he actually played -- and I'll even qualify that with an "in my opinion", if that helps. Is that more clear?

[e2thed]

Bayless needs to quit ball hogging and pass the rock first and get his offense game off the defensive end.

[Joey]

Yep, pretty much. (rolls eyes)

As I said, just watch the games. The numbers don't indicate how poorly he actually played -- and I'll even qualify that with an "in my opinion", if that helps. Is that more clear?

Much clearer. Thanks.
Although, I had always figured that to be your opinion. Not sure how it could have been mistaken as fact.
Also, not quite sure why you need to be rolling your eyes and such.
Just asked you to clarify a very matter-of-fact statement you had made.

But anyway, so what you're saying is, I just need to watch more games, and then I'll agree with you? Or what?.. That you've seen more of Bayless than I have?
Because, y'know, if I had watched more games, I would clearly agree with you.

Over the last stretch of games last year, when Jose was sidelined, Bayless played extremely well. Stats or no stats.
In my opinion.
If he is able to get back to the level of confidence he was paying at last year, he will be a very good Point Guard for many years.
In my opinion.

[jimmie]

Much clearer. Thanks.
Although, I had always figured that to be your opinion. Not sure how it could have been mistaken as fact.
Also, not quite sure why you need to be rolling your eyes and such.
Just asked you to clarify a very matter-of-fact statement you had made.

But anyway, so what you're saying is, I just need to watch more games, and then I'll agree with you? Or what?.. That you've seen more of Bayless than I have?
Because, y'know, if I had watched more games, I would clearly agree with you.

Over the last stretch of games last year, when Jose was sidelined, Bayless played extremely well. Stats or no stats.
In my opinion.
If he is able to get back to the level of confidence he was paying at last year, he will be a very good Point Guard for many years.
In my opinion.

I'm not saying "you" should do anything. I'm saying that "I" watched the games, and I don't think, based on that, that Bayless will ever be a PG or a backup PG on a competitive team in the NBA. That's the conclusion I came to. You don't have to agree; I never suggested you should agree with me. I stated my opinion, no more.

Your opinion that Bayless played extremely well when Calderon was out is also just that. I'm not arguing against your different perception, just presenting my own. I think he lacks court awareness and essentially lucked into a span of decent assist numbers, that's all. Your opinion that he can be a "very good point guard for years to come" is also just that. I would suggest it's in the minority. You can decide whether that makes any difference to you.

Maybe a better question is: Why the aggressive stance on what was clearly my opinion (which you clearly understood from the outset)?

[ebrian]

The only thing I'll agree on that I've seen in this thread is that Bayless needs more minutes.

I don't think Bayless is the answer based on what I've seen, regardless of those 8 meaningless games where half the starters were injured and he scored a lot of points. When the overall talent dips, of course you're going to look good. I can think of several examples of players looking really good when the talent level on the rest of the team sucked. It helps even more when you're facing teams that no longer give a shit. Plus, we don't need a point guard to score a lot of points. We had Mike James before and that didn't work out.

Regardless of my opinion, the Raptors need to put in their due diligence before making a decision on what to do with him. No matter how much I dislike him, the Raptors need to give him minutes, and even name him the starter. Aside from showcasing him so we can trade him, do we really, honestly, need to see more Jose Calderon right now? The worst possible thing I can think of happening here is they end up not giving Bayless enough starts and at the end of the year some guy in the back of the room goes "b-b-b-b-but.. what about those 8 games last year?", and they sign him to a 4 year deal worth $20M. BAM, we have another Kapono/Kleiza on our hands.

[jimmie]

Regardless of my opinion, the Raptors need to put in their due diligence before making a decision on what to do with him. No matter how much I dislike him, the Raptors need to give him minutes, and even name him the starter. Aside from showcasing him so we can trade him, do we really, honestly, need to see more Jose Calderon right now?

I think this has been done to death in other threads, I don't think they need to start Bayless to determine if he's the PG (or even backup PG) of the future. Fans are the ones who "need to see him" in games. The staff sees him in practices, games, and in miles of footage of him from years past. I'm pretty sure they have a pretty decent idea of who he is as a player, and what they consider his potential ceiling.

The cons to starting Bayless are also of note. If you have a crappy PG on the floor with 4 other guys you are trying to develop and evaluate, it's going to adversely affect their development and your ability to evaluate them effectively (ie. they won't get the ball in places they should, not having a PG capable of running the system effectively, etc. makes it tough to determine how the others are playing). It's like saying you want to see how good of a receiver Calvin Johnson might be, but then you put Christian Ponder out there throwing to him.

And as for upping his trade value, what if those of us who think he's not good enough are right? Any trade value he has will just go down if he proves he can't run a team.

[Joey]

Maybe a better question is: Why the aggressive stance on what was clearly my opinion (which you clearly understood from the outset)?

"I'm curious as to how the numbers from the end of last season are a Mirage?

Just because they go against the point that you are trying to make?"

Is not aggressive at all.

And once again, I was simply looking for clarification on the 'Mirage' comment.
Just because I understood it to be your opinion, does not mean I understood the comment itself.
Hence why I asked.

I get that my opinion differs from yours. Thats fine.
This has never been about one opinion vs. another.

I was just curious as to the thought process that went into saying his numbers were a "mirage".
And now I'm curious as to how he "lucked into" his numbers as well.

But I just won't ask.

[jimmie]

"I'm curious as to how the numbers from the end of last season are a Mirage?

Just because they go against the point that you are trying to make?"

Is not aggressive at all.

And once again, I was simply looking for clarification on the 'Mirage' comment.
Just because I understood it to be your opinion, does not mean I understood the comment itself.
Hence why I asked.

I get that my opinion differs from yours. Thats fine.
This has never been about one opinion vs. another.

I was just curious as to the thought process that went into saying his numbers were a "mirage".
And now I'm curious as to how he "lucked into" his numbers as well.

But I just won't ask.

You just did (ask, that is). But I already answered. I watched the games; I came out with a different perception from yours. I'm not going to get into stacking up credentials in terms of watching and analyzing basketball games, because that always comes off as smarmy and arrogant. Suffice to say I'm comfortable in my assessment, but quite willing to be proven wrong.

We'll agree to disagree on the way you phrased your response to my original post. It comes off as aggressive/confrontational, even on second reading. Looks to me like you were pushing buttons, and I don't think I'd be alone in interpreting it that way.

[Joey]

We'll agree to disagree on the way you phrased your response to my original post. It comes off as aggressive/confrontational, even on second reading.

Gladly.
This was not at all my intent.

[Nilanka]

Just because they go against the point that you are trying to make?

I have no reason to take either side, but this sentence does have a mocking tone to it. Whether that was intentional or not, only joey knows.

Having said that, it seems like every post on this site has some element of mockery involved, so I suppose it just comes with the territory

[Joey]

I have no reason to take either side, but this sentence does have a mocking tone to it. Whether that was intentional or not, only joey knows.

It was obviously meant as a jest. I cannot deny that, nor should I have too.
Anyone whos been posting on here for any amount of time knows that I like to joke around.

But as a means to "push buttons" or be confrontational? Not in the slightest.

And to be honest, I still don't see it to be of a confrontational nature.

[slaw]

I posted something similar in the post game thread but it's probably worth repeating here: what is it exactly that Bayless does that makes people so enamoured with him? Is he a great or even good passer? Does the offense look better with him on the floor? Is he an efficient and timely scorer late in the clock? Does he play good defense on opposing PGs? Is he a magician or even a competent ball handler on the break?

Cause, honestly, I don't get it. To me, he's an inefficient, streaky scorer who doesn't get other involved, can't run an offense, and plays poor to middling defense. Now, maybe he's never really had a chance and maybe he's always been blocked and couldn't get off the bench but then let's find that out this year. No need to give him 3 more years on top of it.