Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should Raptors be on the phone with Denver?

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

  • planetmars wrote: View Post
    Just one comment on the Bosh trade to Miami.. apparently the Clippers had offered Griffin for Bosh (this came from Doug Smith in one of his past blogs). This was after the 2009 draft (so Bryan could have made a deal for Bosh before the 2010 off season):

    http://thestar.blogs.com/raptors/201...-airlines.html



    I'm not the biggest Griffin fan.. but I would have done that deal in a heart beat. And assuming Griffin got injured like he did in LA.. we would have tanked in 2009/2010, thus getting a solid pick (say Paul George for example) in the 2010 draft instead of Ed Davis.

    Just pointing out that there were more options on the table in 2009 well before the 2010 off season. Instead Bryan decided to try and keep Bosh by signing Turk and Jack. Not a good decision in my opinion.
    I have to call hindsight on that one as well.

    This was offered before July 14th, 2009 when the Raps were able to offer an extension. A known 24 year old 20/10 all star for an unknown #1 and 4 years and $60M for Baron Davis who was out of shape, oft-injured, and a poor locker room presence? All the rumours of Bosh wanting out were never confirmed and goes back to an earlier argument.

    At the time, this trade would have been like trading a guaranteed 20/10 player for an unknown 20/10 and a debt to pay $60M. That doesn't sound like the kind of stuff that would have flown with the MLSE bean counters.

    Comment


    • Matt52 wrote: View Post
      I have to call hindsight on that one as well.

      This was offered before July 14th, 2009 when the Raps were able to offer an extension. A known 24 year old 20/10 all star for an unknown #1 and 4 years and $60M for Baron Davis who was out of shape, oft-injured, and a poor locker room presence? All the rumours of Bosh wanting out were never confirmed and goes back to an earlier argument.

      At the time, this trade would have been like trading a guaranteed 20/10 player for an unknown 20/10 and a debt to pay $60M. That doesn't sound like the kind of stuff that would have flown with the MLSE bean counters.
      With hindsight that move would have been brilliant considering Griffin will be as good as Bosh is/was, and has that electrifying aspect to his game that we haven't seen since Vince. Throw in the amnesty clause that could be used on Davis, and an early rebuild to get a top pick in 2010 and possibly 2011, and that would be a home run.

      So with hindsight gone, the question that Bryan had to face at that particular moment was whether or not he wanted to rebuild without Bosh or try to contend with Bosh and his potential max salary.

      At that time I was personally hoping for the former, since I didn't see rings with Bosh as "the man" on the roster. And even if the amnesty clause was never created and/or Griffin ended up being a bust - the bottom line was that a Bosh lead team only made the playoffs twice, and in both cases were eliminated in the first round.

      I think Bryan (and MLSE if they were making the shots) made a poor decision not just because of hindsight but because he wasn't looking at the big picture. ie, Bosh as "the man" was not going to get you a ring, and keeping Bosh while getting someone else to be that man would have been extremely difficult (since we don't attract free agents, and our draft picks would be mediocre).

      I am happy that things have turned out well for us. As your avatar suggests though - it took 5 years for Bryan to get it.. It's just too bad it wasn't 4 years.

      Comment


      • planetmars wrote: View Post
        With hindsight that move would have been brilliant considering Griffin will be as good as Bosh is/was, and has that electrifying aspect to his game that we haven't seen since Vince. Throw in the amnesty clause that could be used on Davis, and an early rebuild to get a top pick in 2010 and possibly 2011, and that would be a home run.

        So with hindsight gone, the question that Bryan had to face at that particular moment was whether or not he wanted to rebuild without Bosh or try to contend with Bosh and his potential max salary.

        At that time I was personally hoping for the former, since I didn't see rings with Bosh as "the man" on the roster. And even if the amnesty clause was never created and/or Griffin ended up being a bust - the bottom line was that a Bosh lead team only made the playoffs twice, and in both cases were eliminated in the first round.

        I think Bryan (and MLSE if they were making the shots) made a poor decision not just because of hindsight but because he wasn't looking at the big picture. ie, Bosh as "the man" was not going to get you a ring, and keeping Bosh while getting someone else to be that man would have been extremely difficult (since we don't attract free agents, and our draft picks would be mediocre).

        I am happy that things have turned out well for us. As your avatar suggests though - it took 5 years for Bryan to get it.. It's just too bad it wasn't 4 years.
        Not sure I agree Griffin is as good as Bosh. No outside game, poor defense, questionable knees (although that is a common trait shared with Bosh), poor FT. Part of the equation as a GM that is likely lost on the majority of fans (myself included) is the financial side of the equation. Not sure MLSE would have gone for $60M to B. Diddy.

        Totally agree that Bosh as the man wasn't going to get you a ring but it doesn't look like Griffin will do that either.... and certainly Baron Davis would not have either.

        If we are going to look at the big picture, then the question likely to be asked was: "Will Griffin + Davis make us a better team?" I think the answer is no. A more exciting team? Absolutely, but better? Nope.

        *EDIT* OH yeah. I am going to have to change the avatar. After going for Nash, I'm not sure BC gets it. Keep in mind I was pushing for Nash... did the whole thread and all.... but I was wrong.
        Last edited by mcHAPPY; Tue Aug 14, 2012, 04:33 PM.

        Comment


        • Matt52 wrote: View Post
          Not sure I agree Griffin is as good as Bosh. No outside game, poor defense, questionable knees (although that is a common trait shared with Bosh), poor FT. Part of the equation as a GM that is likely lost on the majority of fans (myself included) is the financial side of the equation. Not sure MLSE would have gone for $60M to B. Diddy.

          Totally agree that Bosh as the man wasn't going to get you a ring but it doesn't look like Griffin will do that either.... and certainly Baron Davis would not have either.

          If we are going to look at the big picture, then the question likely to be asked was: "Will Griffin + Davis make us a better team?" I think the answer is no. A more exciting team? Absolutely, but better? Nope.
          Yeah, the money is definitely a concern. I'm just a guy behind a keyboard and not making decisions like trading for a fat bastard who is owed $60M, but if the way to succeed in the NBA is by getting franchise altering talent, then in my opinion I would do it if it means taking on a bad contract with it.

          Griffin (like A Davis this year) was a consensus #1 pick in 2009. The chance for him to be a franchise altering talent was high. I'd take him and B Diddy because I think I'd have a better chance of building a contender over keeping Bosh at a max contract and then building around him (compounded by the fact that resigning him has only a 50% chance of success).

          And I do agree in that Bosh is better than Griffin+Davis in the short term.. but I think Griffin plus a high pick in 2010 and 2011 would be better in the long term even if Davis was still on the roster rotting away.


          Matt52 wrote: View Post
          *EDIT* OH yeah. I am going to have to change the avatar. After going for Nash, I'm not sure BC gets it. Keep in mind I was pushing for Nash... did the whole thread and all.... but I was wrong.
          I am not a big fan of Colangelo, and I am probably in the minority here, but I still think Nash would have been a good move for this franchise. He would put this team on the map while possibly grooming the next PG of the future (ie, whoever we end up getting in 2013/2014). You would typically never want an aging all-star vet on a rebuilding team but I think Nash would be an exception to that. The guy is smart, keeps himself in great shape, and makes others around him better. Plus he has a winner's mentality.

          Comment


          • planetmars wrote: View Post
            Yeah, the money is definitely a concern. I'm just a guy behind a keyboard and not making decisions like trading for a fat bastard who is owed $60M, but if the way to succeed in the NBA is by getting franchise altering talent, then in my opinion I would do it if it means taking on a bad contract with it.

            Griffin (like A Davis this year) was a consensus #1 pick in 2009. The chance for him to be a franchise altering talent was high. I'd take him and B Diddy because I think I'd have a better chance of building a contender over keeping Bosh at a max contract and then building around him (compounded by the fact that resigning him has only a 50% chance of success).

            And I do agree in that Bosh is better than Griffin+Davis in the short term.. but I think Griffin plus a high pick in 2010 and 2011 would be better in the long term even if Davis was still on the roster rotting away.




            I am not a big fan of Colangelo, and I am probably in the minority here, but I still think Nash would have been a good move for this franchise. He would put this team on the map while possibly grooming the next PG of the future (ie, whoever we end up getting in 2013/2014). You would typically never want an aging all-star vet on a rebuilding team but I think Nash would be an exception to that. The guy is smart, keeps himself in great shape, and makes others around him better. Plus he has a winner's mentality.

            A consensus #1 pick is still not a certainty to be a 20/10 guy. Bosh was and still under 25 at that. When the offer was reportedly made, the Raptors were not even able to offer a contract extension to Bosh. FWIW, I do not classify Griffin as a franchise altering guy on the court... in 2009 it would have been a hope/prayer/guess that ultimately failed.

            Also, the Raptors would have had the same problems building with B. Diddy and Griffin as they did with Bosh - no cap space or flexibility to add talent. The amnesty was an unknown at the time and Davis would have only come off the books on July 1st, 2012.


            I think we have to agree to disagree on the merits of this trade.

            Comment


            • Matt52 wrote: View Post
              A consensus #1 pick is still not a certainty to be a 20/10 guy. Bosh was and still under 25 at that. When the offer was reportedly made, the Raptors were not even able to offer a contract extension to Bosh. FWIW, I do not classify Griffin as a franchise altering guy on the court... in 2009 it would have been a hope/prayer/guess that ultimately failed.

              Also, the Raptors would have had the same problems building with B. Diddy and Griffin as they did with Bosh - no cap space or flexibility to add talent. The amnesty was an unknown at the time and Davis would have only come off the books on July 1st, 2012.


              I think we have to agree to disagree on the merits of this trade.
              I don't think anybody is suggesting that Baron Davis is a core piece to build any franchise around. Absorbing his contract would be the cost of getting the #1 pick. In fact, the ability to not easily add talent via trade or free agency would have been a good thing. It would guarantee that we suck for a few more years and if all went 'well', we'd get a few more top 5 draft picks. OKC model here we come.

              Comment


              • golden wrote: View Post
                I don't think anybody is suggesting that Baron Davis is a core piece to build any franchise around. Absorbing his contract would be the cost of getting the #1 pick. In fact, the ability to not easily add talent via trade or free agency would have been a good thing. It would guarantee that we suck for a few more years and if all went 'well', we'd get a few more top 5 draft picks. OKC model here we come.
                Except you are basing the whole premise on lottery balls bouncing your way, top draft talent available when on the clock, draft talent reaching potential without injury, and chemistry being present in the talent acquired.

                Your whole premise is plugging constants in to an "OKC-magic-formula" when there are many in fact many variables that went in to OKC's success - many of which were beyond their control.

                Comment


                • If the OKC formula was that easy, every non-playoff team would be attempting it.

                  Without Durant (i.e. one of the best players in a generation), none of it is possible. Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka alone is not a championship calibre team.

                  Comment


                  • ok, Ok, OK, .... Using the term 'OKC-model' is a sore point, I see. But the point remains, playing crap (intentionally or not) and acquiring good, young affordable talent via the draft gives you the option of developing that talent further or or flipping it into established better talent. Blinding glimpse of the obvious, I know.

                    Comment


                    • golden wrote: View Post
                      ok, Ok, OK, .... Using the term 'OKC-model' is a sore point, I see. But the point remains, playing crap (intentionally or not) and acquiring good, young affordable talent via the draft gives you the option of developing that talent further or or flipping it into established better talent. Blinding glimpse of the obvious, I know.
                      The OKC model is not a sore point. It is an often overused and oversimplified model that requires luck before talented front office people can have any impact on the outcome.

                      Comment


                      • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        The OKC model is not a sore point. It is an often overused and oversimplified model that requires luck before talented front office people can have any impact on the outcome.
                        At long last, in this thread, we agree. :-)

                        Comment


                        • golden wrote: View Post
                          At long last, in this thread, we agree. :-)
                          Hallelujah!

                          Comment


                          • Quick, close the thread! We have achieved world peace! lol

                            Comment


                            • Katman wrote: View Post
                              Quick, close the thread! We have achieved world peace! lol

                              No we haven't


                              ....





                              He's still in LA
                              TORONTOOOOOO RAPTORSSSSSS

                              Comment


                              • theycallmeZZ wrote: View Post
                                No we haven't


                                ....





                                He's still in LA
                                MuaHaHaHa

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X