Tim W. wrote:
View Post
Let me put it another way. Let's say for argument's sake that after Bosh was traded, Bargs was shipped to NO for Emeka Okafor. These two played roughly the same number of minutes and Okafor produced about 4 more wins going by win shares. So again, for argument's sake only, let's give the Raps 22 wins; still pretty dismal, and not enough to pack the building by any means.
More important is how the team would have looked on the court. With Okafor at the 5 playing alongside Johnson and Davis at the 4, the paint would have been packed tight. None of those guys have much of a post game, so we can assume most of the scoring would have been left to the guards/wings. The problem is, most of them don't shoot very well from deep. Calderon and Bayless are average from deep, and Barbosa is passable, but the rest of the team struggles from the outside. On top of that, Barbosa, Bayless and DeRozan all get a lot of their points from driving, which is far more difficult when the paint is packed as defenders sag. Plus there's the reduction in open looks from reduced the drive and kick game. All in all, the offense would have been ugly. The team may have won a few more games on account of better defence and rebounding, but they would have been a far less entertaining team to watch for the average fan. So, I would expect attendance to have declined relative to keeping Bargnani.
Now conversely, let's suppose they traded Bargnani for Monta Ellis, another one dimensional scorer. The team would have been similarly dismal, but arguably more entertaining because Ellis is a lot of fun to watch. So I would expect attendance to have risen slightly.
My point is that it's all relative. Obviously Bargs isn't going to bring in fans like a superstar, but to suggest that he doesn't help to fill seats is, I think, a stretch. He helps make the Raps an entertaining team (if, ultlimately, a bad one). A good example of this effect is the Warriors, who field a bad yet entertaining team and do very well in attendance (though they have a rabid fan base, so it's tough to deduce how much of a correlation exists there). I'm not foolish enough to suggest that Bargs brings fans in solely because they like to watch him play; as I've stated multiple times now, there are a very few players in the league who can make that claim and who sell season tickets through their presence alone. But I think the combination of his fans and the fans drawn to the team because he helps enable an entertaining style of play certainly has value.
Now one of the biggest differences we seem to have regarding Bargnani is what his trade value is based on. But in actuality, we see more eye to eye than you think. Now, you feel his trade value is based mostly on his productivity rather than potential, yet you want to keep him longer because you feel there's a good chance that Casey will be able to get more out of Bargnani. Isn't that exactly what Bargnani defenders have been saying, and isn't that saying that is only Bargnani had the right coach and the right system, he'd be more valuable?
A good example of this is the Jeff Green / Kendrick Perkins trade that I mentioned earlier. Danny Ainge decided to trade away a strength in order to shore up a perceived weakness in an effort to ensure that the Celtics had someone to guard LeBron. That failed miserably, but GMs take these risks all the time because of the various pressures of having to appease owners, fans, closing windows, etc. So if Casey moves the Raps from the cellar defensively to, say, 18-20th, GMs may decide that Bargnani is a liability that can be hidden rather than a defensive leper.
Besides, if his trade value is based on his productivity, then why would you pay a guy $11 million dollars for basically something that Ryan Anderson or Matt Bonner can do for the fraction of the price. Now, obviously those guys don't have the skills that Bargnani does, but you said yourself that no one would trade for him to become their first or second option, but simply as a big who can spread the floor. Hell, at least Anderson and Bonner aren't liabilities half the time their on the floor. And Ryan Anderson actually had a higher PER than Bargnani.
More importantly, if 9-12 million is too much for a 3rd option under the new CBA, how are you going to trade Bargnani anyway? Who's going to take him at that price unless they think he can be a valuable asset? We both agree that no GM could really think that his current play merits it, nor does his waning potential, so who would take him unless that opinion changes, and what kind of asset would you get in return?
Now, it's my contention that Bargnani's trade value peaked in the summer of 2010. Back then, you could have argued that he simply hadn't been given a chance to shine (although I would have argued against that) or some of the other many arguments his defenders used that summer. It wasn't a rare opinion that he might finally be able to measure up to the potential he apparently had. And then he was given the chance and, while he certainly was able to score at a good rate, his season was considered by most to be a disappointment, mostly due to his lack of development on defense and on the boards.
Now we've got one more excuse. That Bargnani simply needs a good defensive coach to kick his butt. Not nearly as many people are drinking the Kool-Aid on this one, but there are enough to show that people still believe he has the potential to be a better player. Maybe not great, but better. Even you.
The problem with that is, what happens if he DOESN'T improve? What happens to his trade value, then? You are right that GMs tend to gamble, but the more excuses you cross of the list for Bargnani, the less likely a GM is going to want to gamble on a guy who arguably doesn't even have a positive effect when he's on the floor. If you've got an asset that probably won't go up in value much, if at all, but has a better chance of going down, then the smart thing to do is trade that asset for something else.
Now we've got one more excuse. That Bargnani simply needs a good defensive coach to kick his butt. Not nearly as many people are drinking the Kool-Aid on this one, but there are enough to show that people still believe he has the potential to be a better player. Maybe not great, but better. Even you.
The problem with that is, what happens if he DOESN'T improve? What happens to his trade value, then? You are right that GMs tend to gamble, but the more excuses you cross of the list for Bargnani, the less likely a GM is going to want to gamble on a guy who arguably doesn't even have a positive effect when he's on the floor. If you've got an asset that probably won't go up in value much, if at all, but has a better chance of going down, then the smart thing to do is trade that asset for something else.
Where I think we disagree is how much his value will go down with a more-of-the-same season. I think there's more to be gained than lost by waiting to see because a) I don't think that trading Bargs will return the kind of prospect/pick that I think the Raps should be searching for and b) I don't think his value can go down much if it turns out he can't be taught defence or hidden. I think at best right now you could swap him for, say, a Monta Ellis type player (ie a smiliarly one dimensional player that doesn't help you win games), but that's just trading the problem from one position to another and I'd argue that a big that can shoot is easier to move than a guard. Don't get me wrong, if BC could get a solid pick in this year's draft or a even a guy like Nic Batum for him, I'd say do it in a heartbeat. But like you, I think that the value of his potential is all but gone. That's why I'm interested to see if it can be rekindled by a stretch of good play or by the Raps improving defensively. I just don't think his trade value can fall as far as you do (since I think it has essentially levelled off), so I'm more open to the gamble. Just a difference in styles really.
As for the whole shots per game argument, obviously my argument isn't based on any science, but the fact of the matter is that Bargnani took more shots per game last year than Bosh did at any time in his career. And a lot of that was due to the fact that 2 of the 3 players who were expected to help share the scoring burden missed significant time to injury. While injuries happen, it's not likely that literally half of your expected top scorers are going to miss nearly an entire season between them. In the 39 games that Kleiza did play, most of those injured, apparently, his still took 10 shots per game.
Lastly, this argument that you can't have a front court of Valanciunas, Davis and Amir because none of them are great scorers, until Chris Bosh came along, do you know how much the next highest scoring Raptor big man scored? 14.5 ppg. It was Antonio Davis.
I think a front line that all play defense, rebound and score efficiently trumps a front line that can score, but can't rebound or play consistent defense.
I think a front line that all play defense, rebound and score efficiently trumps a front line that can score, but can't rebound or play consistent defense.
I felt that this was an intelligent and entertaining discussion, which seems to be a rarity on the internet. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.
Comment