Why not take advantage of Barg's skills. He is a shooter and a scorer! He could be a sixth man off the bench and play against second stringers and do lots of scoring off the bench! It's hard to replace a 20 point scorer and since we already have him ; bring him off the bench to do some scoring on the second unit!! Before I would trade him we would have to get something very good before I would dump him for nothing; as I said he could come off the bench and be a big plus!!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Everything Bargnani
Collapse
X
-
i don't like the idea of making bargs into a 6th man. i think his greatest value outside of our starting center position is being on a different team. his value would decrease a significant amount after becoming a bench player on a losing team. also, we're not in a position to demote him and continue to have expectations of him improving his defensive reliability. making him a 6th man for his offence exclusively is the wrong approach for any progression.
Comment
-
funkie wrote: View Posti don't like the idea of making bargs into a 6th man. i think his greatest value outside of our starting center position is being on a different team. his value would decrease a significant amount after becoming a bench player on a losing team. also, we're not in a position to demote him and continue to have expectations of him improving his defensive reliability. making him a 6th man for his offence exclusively is the wrong approach for any progression.
Comment
-
webcrawler89 wrote: View PostI'...Suns have Gortat, Magic probably won't want him, Bucks already have Bogut.
Unfortunately they have crap to offer. Bargnani for Gortat and Pietrus was a missed deal that should have been.
Comment
-
badbob wrote: View PostWhy not take advantage of Barg's skills. He is a shooter and a scorer! He could be a sixth man off the bench and play against second stringers and do lots of scoring off the bench! It's hard to replace a 20 point scorer and since we already have him ; bring him off the bench to do some scoring on the second unit!! Before I would trade him we would have to get something very good before I would dump him for nothing; as I said he could come off the bench and be a big plus!!Last edited by j bean; Sun Apr 17, 2011, 08:37 PM.
Comment
-
Tim W. wrote: View PostMany implies a large number. It doesn't imply a majority. And I'd say a large number of RR posters have been advocating a Bargnani trade.
PS> He can drop 45 on us for all I care. As long as we win.“The saving of our world from pending doom will come, not through the complacent adjustment of the conforming majority, but through the creative maladjustment of a nonconforming minority.” - Martin Luther King
Comment
-
As DeRozan's also experience a large percentage drop of his shots being assisted, from 67.4% to 59.4%, we should all conclude he's finding his shot less and less within the flow of the team's offense? His insistence on going one-on-one has led to a dramatic increase in shots from the 16-23 foot range, from 2.3 a game to 5.1, which is basically the laziest shot he could take shooting . So not only does the team's offense need to basically stop to allow him his forays with the ball, but he 'rewards' the team by taking bad shots.
I too can be very selective with discussing statistics...
Time to get some Skittles.
Comment
-
-
How can Colangelo justify a Bargnani trade to skeptical bosses like Larry Tanenbaum? "Whoops, the last 5 years have been a dreadful mistake. The guy I was building around was a waste of a #1 pick and should have been nailed to the end of the bench. My bad." He might as well quit.
Comment
-
I was hard on the "trade Bargnani" train and I think it is clear that he has demonstrated this season that he is not a number 1 guy on any team or a "franchise" player. However, he doesn't get paid like a franchise player, he gets paid like a 2-3 guy if not a 4-6 on a very good team. Whether you like it or not he was the focal point of our offense this year and was treated by opposing teams at our number one threat. I'm not trying to make excuses for him but one could argue that Barg's is not the problem. The fact that we have no all-stars, no franchise players, hardly any veteran presence (barbs, and reggie?) explains his drop in rebounding/shot blocking ect. Barg's was in over his head and being asked to do a job he wasn't qualified for, couldn't do, and didn't get paid for it. Barg's as the face of the franchise? You can find the answer to that question at failblog.com. But does that mean he has to go? Getting rid of Bargnani doesn't magically give us a franchise player, or an allstar or even veteran presence, unless some of those pieces are involved in that trade. Getting rid of Bargnani is not addition by subtraction. Although there are some problems with the efficiency of his production getting better players on this team would make a big difference, for the team as a whole not just Barg's. Let me be clear, I am NOT advocating that we build around bargnani. In fact it is the opposite, we need BETTER players or our younger players to continue to develop. Bargnani as a 3rd option could do just as well here as elsewhere. I don't buy the he "won't" be willing to come of the bench or that it would hurt his trade value. If we get good value for him then sure, pull the trigger, but his contract is very reasonable and as the 3rd or 4th option he could still be very effective. I know we are "mostly" and yes I mean that the majority of RR posters are on the trade bargs train. But it has to be for something BETTER. I don't think draft picks will do it. If I am the GM it's not just about getting the right players, but it's about getting the right players with the right contracts. Barg's might not be the right player but he is still better than a wrong player on a wrong contract OR even the right player at the wrong contract. Barg's gets paid to play, he'll play at the 3 position or at c or coming off the bench, because it is clear that "favouritism" from the front office/coaching staff has run out. We are still in rebuild mode and still have an excellent payroll (if you don't count peja as still being a raptor). Keeping good contracts keeps us flexible. Making a trade just to trade could leave us with a contract that limits us for going after the "final" piece to take us DEEP into the playoffs 2-4 years from now. We don't HAVE to trade Bargnani, we CAN and we SHOULD but only if get a player AND contract that give BETTER value."They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014
"I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015
"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon
Comment
-
Hugmenot wrote: View PostAs DeRozan's also experience a large percentage drop of his shots being assisted, from 67.4% to 59.4%, we should all conclude he's finding his shot less and less within the flow of the team's offense? His insistence on going one-on-one has led to a dramatic increase in shots from the 16-23 foot range, from 2.3 a game to 5.1, which is basically the laziest shot he could take shooting . So not only does the team's offense need to basically stop to allow him his forays with the ball, but he 'rewards' the team by taking bad shots.
I too can be very selective with discussing statistics...
Time to get some Skittles."They're going to have to rename the whole conference after us: Toronto Raptors 2014-2015 Northern Conference Champions" ~ ezzbee Dec. 2014
"I guess I got a little carried away there" ~ ezzbee Apr. 2015
"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon
Comment
-
what does "large" or "small" have to do with numbers?
I think "many" implies a group greater than "not many", but it's completely within the realm of possibility that the group indicated would not be large. For example, in relation to the NBA as a whole, how many fans are Raptors fans? Not many. Of those fans, how many would support the idea of trading Bargnani? Even fewer; so, less than not many.
I don't know if using the term "many" was appropriate, and it certainly has little or nothing to do with a majority, but using "large" and "small" to describe number is a conceptual misnomer as such terms relate to physical size. So, unless you're describing the number "1,000,000" as larger in space than "1"...It's about money
Comment
-
ezz_bee wrote: View PostI was hard on the "trade Bargnani" train and I think it is clear that he has demonstrated this season that he is not a number 1 guy on any team or a "franchise" player. However, he doesn't get paid like a franchise player, he gets paid like a 2-3 guy if not a 4-6 on a very good team. Whether you like it or not he was the focal point of our offense this year and was treated by opposing teams at our number one threat. I'm not trying to make excuses for him but one could argue that Barg's is not the problem. The fact that we have no all-stars, no franchise players, hardly any veteran presence (barbs, and reggie?) explains his drop in rebounding/shot blocking ect. Barg's was in over his head and being asked to do a job he wasn't qualified for, couldn't do, and didn't get paid for it. Barg's as the face of the franchise? You can find the answer to that question at failblog.com. But does that mean he has to go? Getting rid of Bargnani doesn't magically give us a franchise player, or an allstar or even veteran presence, unless some of those pieces are involved in that trade. Getting rid of Bargnani is not addition by subtraction. Although there are some problems with the efficiency of his production getting better players on this team would make a big difference, for the team as a whole not just Barg's. Let me be clear, I am NOT advocating that we build around bargnani. In fact it is the opposite, we need BETTER players or our younger players to continue to develop. Bargnani as a 3rd option could do just as well here as elsewhere. I don't buy the he "won't" be willing to come of the bench or that it would hurt his trade value. If we get good value for him then sure, pull the trigger, but his contract is very reasonable and as the 3rd or 4th option he could still be very effective. I know we are "mostly" and yes I mean that the majority of RR posters are on the trade bargs train. But it has to be for something BETTER. I don't think draft picks will do it. If I am the GM it's not just about getting the right players, but it's about getting the right players with the right contracts. Barg's might not be the right player but he is still better than a wrong player on a wrong contract OR even the right player at the wrong contract. Barg's gets paid to play, he'll play at the 3 position or at c or coming off the bench, because it is clear that "favouritism" from the front office/coaching staff has run out. We are still in rebuild mode and still have an excellent payroll (if you don't count peja as still being a raptor). Keeping good contracts keeps us flexible. Making a trade just to trade could leave us with a contract that limits us for going after the "final" piece to take us DEEP into the playoffs 2-4 years from now. We don't HAVE to trade Bargnani, we CAN and we SHOULD but only if get a player AND contract that give BETTER value.
Defensively, getting rid of Bargnani is addition by subtraction.
That said, I agree that we should force our way into a trading. We should get value, but we should also be shopping him hard.
Comment
-
Brandon wrote: View PostHow can Colangelo justify a Bargnani trade to skeptical bosses like Larry Tanenbaum? "Whoops, the last 5 years have been a dreadful mistake. The guy I was building around was a waste of a #1 pick and should have been nailed to the end of the bench. My bad." He might as well quit.
Comment
Comment