Everything Derozan

[3inthekeon]

All depends on if you want to keep your talent or not Dan. Its easy to sit back as a fan and say 'no way', a little harder to justify if your job s to put a winning team on the floor.

The question then is how much winning and when is the planned apex of winning. The Kanter deal has been quoted as showing what a "steal" the JV extension is. But that was a skewed market and a hefty overpay.. Portland with a ton of cap room that had to do something with it. And OKC in total "win-now" mode. Presti's job is what your saying - put a winning team on the floor this season.

The Raptors aren't in that situation. This team is not championship calibre with or without DD. This team is most likely a playoff team with or without DD. Not sure what MU will do with DD, resign, trade, or let walk are all very real possibilities. What i cannot envision is an overpay that hinders the future simply to win a few more games in the present.

[planetmars]

I value production/talent more than character, which is why I have no problem with an MM acquisition if Masai chooses to.. and that also makes it easier for me to want to trade DeMar (or just not resign him) who seems to had loads of character.

And I think Masai needs to figure out if that is really an important quality in a player. Tyreke or Monta may be on par with DD in terms of talent but neither have the character that DD has. Is $9M a good investment on character and the slight talent upgrade (assuming DD asks for $20M and Tyrke/Monta make about $11M) or would it be better to get one of these other guys and then spend the $9M somewhere else (assuming guys like Tyrke or Monta or even available)?

Ultimately I suspect a resign and then a future trade.. but even trading DD is not going to be an easy decision as it will always come back to character/loyalty vs talent. I have faith in Masai to make the right decision, as he's been generally spot on with his decisions (except for bringing back Casey this year - which is mind boggling).

[golden]

lmao damn dogs.

Honestly with the talent developing at other positions, DeMar's impact could be replaced by a Tyreke Evans or Monta Ellis type of player if that's what you want. DD's better than those guys, but I have a feeling he's going to cost disproportionately more and the team would be better off with a player of Tyreke or Monta's calibre and re-distributing the leftover cap space to other positions. Alternatively, you don't even need 18-22 ppg from the SG spot and you can have more of a specialist at that position - Danny Green, JJ Redick, Kyle Korver, etc. have held down that spot on very successful teams recently.

The Markieff Morris discussion brought up a good point that there already really isn't room for more usage in the starting unit, and this team definitely still needs a talent upgrade (a player who will need the ball) at some point. Just due to usage, efficiency, and cost, out of the current starters I'd prefer to replace DeMar (or at least "lose" him to make cap and usage space for a better player). That being said, Masai is accumulating good young prospects and I'm not sure how long Lowry will be healthy for - he looks like a guy who could start breaking down sooner rather than later (especially if he's used like last year). This could be a team that ends up peaking after both Lowry and DD are done here.

Indeed. And this is partially why there is so much debate about Demar's value. It is rare that a player is actually allowed by his coach to chuck at > 26 USG at below average efficiency (ORTG, 105). Superstars are typically > 27 USG / > 110 ORTG. G.O.A.T. players (Lebron, MJ) can even maintain a ridiculous 120 ORTG at an insane > 30%USG.

But Demar is in that 3rd tier of pseudo-star: > 26 USG and ORTG between 103 and 109. That's exactly Tyreke and Monta territory as S.R. pointed out. There is a wide range of salary for those type of guys, and very often the type of player that franchises regret giving the max amount in hindsight. If you take the last 2 seasons, these are the guys who could replace DD's usage at similar efficiency.

Nick Young and Kevin Martin fit the bill as direct plug-ins at SG, at much lower salary than $20M/year. Marreese Speights would be an interesting high usage option if you chose to upgrade PF.



http://bkref.com/tiny/xGADv

[planetmars]

Perhaps Masai made the wrong call and should have traded DD while keeping Rudy Gay.

Rudy Gay is making $13.3M a year for the Kings.. which is really DD's worth, yet he will command more like $18M-$20M.

Rudy was the better player last year (slightly better in numbers across the board, except FTA which was still fairly close). I don't know if DD could have received the same bench that Gay received (Patterson is the only guy left, but GV gave us Powell and a future first and Salmons gave us Bebe) - but looking back at that trade, I think I would have rather traded DD instead.

[Just Is]

Perhaps Masai made the wrong call and should have traded DD while keeping Rudy Gay.

Rudy Gay is making $13.3M a year for the Kings.. which is really DD's worth, yet he will command more like $18M-$20M.

Rudy was the better player last year (slightly better in numbers across the board, except FTA which was still fairly close). I don't know if DD could have received the same bench that Gay received (Patterson is the only guy left, but GV gave us Powell and a future first and Salmons gave us Bebe) - but looking back at that trade, I think I would have rather traded DD instead.

I think even at the time, this was a question (whether Gay or Demar should have been traded). I think the bigger fear with Gay was that player option.

I don't think Demar would have got us the same haul (just because of salary).

I'm going to say this even though I know I might catch some flak for it but Rudy was the better player (both at the time of the trade, and now) but, even taking that into account, I still don't know if trading Demar over him would have been the better option. Just because Rudy was such a large part of the offense, him leaving forced the team to play differently. I don't know if we get that same change if Rudy is still here (although Demar's usage at the time was close to his).

I don't think there would have been much difference though since we have the same coach. At best, we make the second round that year against Brooklyn since Gay would have been able to guard Joe Johnson and that was really the only reason we lost.

[raptors999]

Perhaps Masai made the wrong call and should have traded DD while keeping Rudy Gay.

Rudy Gay is making $13.3M a year for the Kings.. which is really DD's worth, yet he will command more like $18M-$20M.

Rudy was the better player last year (slightly better in numbers across the board, except FTA which was still fairly close). I don't know if DD could have received the same bench that Gay received (Patterson is the only guy left, but GV gave us Powell and a future first and Salmons gave us Bebe) - but looking back at that trade, I think I would have rather traded DD instead.

Unless you change coaches the results would have been the same, low eff - high volume. Gay improved immediately just like GV will under Kidd and Lou under Scott. There is also the chance that Raptors lose Gay for nothing after his deal expired

[Wild-ling#1]

I've made no argument that anyone should trust my talent and contract valuations. Simply an argument about using the market as a measuring tool when said market is actually a flawed sub-market .... We aren't paying a one time fee. We are agreeing to buy that $500 shovel 4 or 5 years in a row, even though we know the gold rush ends 2 years from now.

If you reject a true market value (not a "whacky GM" scenario, but where several teams are bidding for a player), you are necessarily advocating people accept someone's personal valuation - whether yours, theirs or someone else's - and that's a valuation not backed up by an actual bidding process or purchase.

Which is just an opinion, really. Though there are better and worse opinions. More informed, better reasoned. Please hear me - your views are appreciated, Dan. And people do find bargains. And some investor portfolios do outperform the market - I get that. It is one (but only one) legitimate way of articulating a GM's role, in fact.

So you may be very wise to avoid buying a house (or more likely, a condo) during the current housing boom in Toronto (A "sub-market", if you like). You can stay in the accommodation you have ... or choose another locale. Or wait 'til the market slumps ("levels out", if you prefer). Or very carefully hunt for bargains. You may be wise to wait. But you may have reasons not to. Time passes. It's relevant.

So - particularly if you have the cash - you may want to throw a bid in, at or near "market price" - on your own little piece of heaven. It's the prerogative of any purchaser. Masai too.

[raptors999]

If you reject a true market value (not a "whacky GM" scenario, but where several teams are bidding for a player), you are necessarily advocating people accept someone's personal valuation - whether yours, theirs or someone else's - and that's a valuation not backed up by an actual bidding process or purchase.

Which is just an opinion, really. Though there are better and worse opinions. More informed, better reasoned. Please hear me - your views are appreciated, Dan. And people do find bargains. And some investor portfolios do outperform the market - I get that.

So you may be very wise to avoid buying a house (or more likely, a condo) during the current housing boom in Toronto (A "sub-market"). You can stay in the accommodation you have ... or choose another locale. Or wait 'til the market slumps ("levels out", if you prefer). Or very carefully hunt for bargains. You may be wise to wait. But you may have reasons not to. Time passes. It's relevant.

So - particularly if you have the cash - you may want to throw a bid in, at or near "market price" - on your own little piece of heaven. It's the prerogative of any purchaser. Masai too.

Market value is meanless for unique goods like NBA players or Houses vs commodities like Oranges and Tires. Market value determines the price of oranges but a house is worth what a buyer will play

[planetmars]

I think even at the time, this was a question (whether Gay or Demar should have been traded). I think the bigger fear with Gay was that player option.

I don't think Demar would have got us the same haul (just because of salary).

I'm going to say this even though I know I might catch some flak for it but Rudy was the better player (both at the time of the trade, and now) but, even taking that into account, I still don't know if trading Demar over him would have been the better option. Just because Rudy was such a large part of the offense, him leaving forced the team to play differently. I don't know if we get that same change if Rudy is still here (although Demar's usage at the time was close to his).

I don't think there would have been much difference though since we have the same coach. At best, we make the second round that year against Brooklyn since Gay would have been able to guard Joe Johnson and that was really the only reason we lost.

I don't think Demar would have got us the same haul either, but Gay really only got us 2Pat, Bebe, Powell, and a protected first.. which is great, but DD could have gotten something close. He still had 2.5 years locked in his contract, and was an all-star the year Gay got traded. Lou (Salmons) and GV couldn't help us get passed the first round and are all gone.

I do agree that Masai pulled the trigger because of Gay's option, but in hindsight I think trading DD would have been the better call. Using hindsight as an argument is poor but it's what I have.

I'm not even thinking about Brooklyn.. just the fact that he's only making $13.3M and is better than DD (not by much, but stats show he's better in every way). Offense around Gay is just as good as an offense around DD - in my opinion. Defensively Gay is an upgrade as well.

Unless you change coaches the results would have been the same, low eff - high volume. Gay improved immediately just like GV will under Kidd and Lou under Scott. There is also the chance that Raptors lose Gay for nothing after his deal expired

Results would be similar for sure.. but Gay is better value than DD which is the point I'm trying to make. And I wonder if Masai would have traded DD instead of Gay if he could go back in time.. I know I would have. As for losing Gay for nothing.. that didn't happen in Sacramento. Gay is the god father to Lowry's kid. Good chances were that he'd stick around.

[Axel]

Since we are throwing around pointless analogies.

The Raptors (and the forum) are like a case of beer. They lead to both good times and tears; comrades and arguments; pleasure and pain. Everything DD is the stunk beer that is in some cases. It doesn't taste quite right but you drink it anyway, cause you know you need to before you can justify moving on to the next case of beer.

[raptors999]

I don't think Demar would have got us the same haul either, but Gay really only got us 2Pat, Bebe, Powell, and a protected first.. which is great, but DD could have gotten something close. He still had 2.5 years locked in his contract, and was an all-star the year Gay got traded. Lou (Salmons) and GV couldn't help us get passed the first round and are all gone.

I do agree that Masai pulled the trigger because of Gay's option, but in hindsight I think trading DD would have been the better call. Using hindsight as an argument is poor but it's what I have.

I'm not even thinking about Brooklyn.. just the fact that he's only making $13.3M and is better than DD (not by much, but stats show he's better in every way). Offense around Gay is just as good as an offense around DD - in my opinion. Defensively Gay is an upgrade as well.




Results would be similar for sure.. but Gay is better value than DD which is the point I'm trying to make. And I wonder if Masai would have traded DD instead of Gay if he could go back in time.. I know I would have. As for losing Gay for nothing.. that didn't happen in Sacramento. Gay is the god father to Lowry's kid. Good chances were that he'd stick around.

If Gay resigns for the deal he did in Sac then Raptors would have been better off since they also use the DC money to sign a SG or PF or move Gay to PF and sign DC as the SF. But it depends how certain Gay extending is

[planetmars]

If Gay resigns for the deal he did in Sac then Raptors would have been better off since they also use the DC money to sign a SG or PF or move Gay to PF and sign DC as the SF. But it depends how certain Gay extending is

Yeah.. I was making the assumption that he'd resign with Toronto for the same amount he got from Sacramento. Anyway if DD gets the same deal as Gay I'd be totally on board with it.. $40M/3 years.. with an option in the 3rd year. Just very unlikely though.

[Just Is]

I don't think Demar would have got us the same haul either, but Gay really only got us 2Pat, Bebe, Powell, and a protected first.. which is great, but DD could have gotten something close. He still had 2.5 years locked in his contract, and was an all-star the year Gay got traded. Lou (Salmons) and GV couldn't help us get passed the first round and are all gone.

I do agree that Masai pulled the trigger because of Gay's option, but in hindsight I think trading DD would have been the better call. Using hindsight as an argument is poor but it's what I have.

I'm not even thinking about Brooklyn.. just the fact that he's only making $13.3M and is better than DD (not by much, but stats show he's better in every way). Offense around Gay is just as good as an offense around DD - in my opinion. Defensively Gay is an upgrade as well.




Results would be similar for sure.. but Gay is better value than DD which is the point I'm trying to make. And I wonder if Masai would have traded DD instead of Gay if he could go back in time.. I know I would have. As for losing Gay for nothing.. that didn't happen in Sacramento. Gay is the god father to Lowry's kid. Good chances were that he'd stick around.

Can't disagree with this. Especially with what Gay's making now. If you could go back in time, 10/10 times, knowing what we know now, you'd be trading Demar over Gay. Even moreso since Demar could be making a LOT more than Gay would while bringing less to the table.

[mcHAPPY]

Only thing I would question with this Gay-Demar talk is Gay was historically awful here.

There is no way of knowing if that would have continued.

There is no way of knowing if Casey would have kept him bulked up trying to play the 4.

I mean it was so bad for him here, remember the banning of score sheets?

I agree with the premise but am not sure things would have worked out the same and if the Raps would be where they are now.

[BS10]

I think we should have dealt both and never looked back