Everything Derozan

[SkywalkerAC]

DeMar is incapable of playing off ball...yet he does, every game.

This is starting to remind me of our "DeMar is not a slasher"-debate.

[Axel]

DeMar is incapable of playing off ball...yet he does, every game.

This is starting to remind me of our "DeMar is not a slasher"-debate.

Clearly another who doesn't understand the topic.

I'm done.

Go back to the usual "Demar is great" vs "Demar sucks" banter, cause clearly people aren't capable of this nuanced discussion.

[JWash]

Not really. Can he catch and shoot from three?? Can he make a swing pass without holding the ball for 2+ seconds

The answer for both of those is no. So no, he cant play off ball.

Also, are we just not going to talk about how the Raptors dig themselves a hole when they use DD...he may actually be a player putting up big stats but isnt affecting the game at all?

If that question is being asked...should there really even be a discussion of how much he should be making? Or should the question be, how will the team change without him?

Catch and shoot from 3? Depends where, from the corners yes, and considering this is actually the best area to make a drive and kick pass to for a 3 point shot, I'm not seeing an issue there.

And yes he can make a swing pass, it's not something that requires a significant amount of skill to do. He can even make such passes on the move and out of double teams.

Again anyone who thinks DeRozan is what's holding the Raptors back from being a championship contender is simply choosing to ignore the reality that is the NBA. We do not have a superstar without that, we are not sniffing a title whether DeRozan's on the team or not. Swapping out DeRozan for Danny Green (this is the type of player most of the anti-DD camp would want in that spot) isn't going to change that.

[JWash]

Clearly another who doesn't understand the topic.

I'm done.

Go back to the usual "Demar is great" vs "Demar sucks" banter, cause clearly people aren't capable of this nuanced discussion.

I'm pretty sure everyone understands the topic. The problem is you're trying to create some weird, narrow definition of what off-ball play is so that DeRozan doesn't/can't fit into it.

[SkywalkerAC]

I'm pretty sure everyone understands the topic. The problem is you're trying to create some weird, narrow definition of what off-ball play is so that DeRozan doesn't/can't fit into it.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a grey area between two of the greatest screen-runners of all time, in Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton, and complete incompetence playing off-the-ball.

[JWash]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a grey area between two of the greatest screen-runners of all time in Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton, and incapable of playing off-the-ball.

Yup. Also offenses are even more advanced and sophisticated than they were back then, so teams are capable of running sets that get guys shot opportunities like those two without necessarily having to create themselves purely off situational awareness.

It's weird because so many are against (rightfully so) falling into the small-ball trend, yet we MUST have a 3+D guy at the SG spot (or a superstar) or all hope is lost. I think team-building is a lot more dynamic than that.

[JWash]

We almost all agree that Casey doesn't maximize his players, yet somehow it's inconceivable that DeRozan (like everyone else on the team) could be used in a way that is more effective.

[SkywalkerAC]

We almost all agree that Casey doesn't maximize his players, yet somehow it's inconceivable that DeRozan (like everyone else on the team) could be used in a way that is more effective.

I agree that a different coach could have DeMar playing (more) effectively in a different way. But Casey also has DeMar performing at a high level currently, and winning ball games, so...

[JWash]

I agree that a different coach could have DeMar playing (more) effectively in a different way. But Casey also has DeMar performing at a high level currently, and winning ball games, so...

Like I said before (can't remember which thread), I think most are just annoyed that we're not a title contender and looking for someone to blame it on/a way to fix it. Firing Casey and replacing him with an elite coach makes us better sure. Letting DeRozan walk and replacing him with a SG/PF for $15M or SG for $15M might not make us much worse. But the reality is we're at a threshold already where changes like these maybe make the difference of a win or two in the playoffs at most. Without a superstar we're not competing for the Larry O'Brien. That's the real "problem" I guess.

So as long as we don't have a superstar I suppose we are "treadmilling" although I much prefer treadmilling in the 3-5 seeds and at least being in the playoffs than treadmilling 7-11 and wondering why the FUCK I even watch this team (the BC era).

To me really at this point there are only two logical courses of action

1.) Retain assets that have value, continue making the playoffs while stockpiling assets in the event that a superstar becomes available via trade or free agency.

2.) Blow up the roster minus JV, CoJo and the draft picks and tank.

Don't see how shit like letting DeRozan walk really gets us anywhere because we're just losing an asset (DeRozan on a max deal is not really an asset, so in that case we wouldn't be losing one, $20M per, he is).

[Primer]

That WS vs salary comparison is definitely off - you can't base it off of WS/48, you end up with wacky numbers (as noted but many here). If you are going to use WS as a measure of player value, this is how you do it (you could come up with an "above replacement" value but with WS it works out pretty similarly so we'll stick with raw values).

Total W's in a year = 82 games * 30 teams *0.5 winners per game. 1230 wins.

Total salary based on the NBA assumption = Salary cap * number of teams * roughly 1.14 (assumption of average exceeding of cap) = 70 * 30 * 1.14 = 2.394 B this year.

Divide salary by wins -> 1.95M per total WS.

DeRozan generated 4 wins last year, so if he replicated that, he'd be worth 7.8M this year. He generated 8.8 WS in his all-star year, so if he replicated that he would be worth 17.2M this year. He's currently on pace for 8.8 again this year (assuming his typical 80 games played), so he'd be worth 17.2M in this salary cap.

Note that in his all-star year he was actually worth 14.3M due to the lower cap.

And also note that if you evaluate his performance based on the 4 years he'll definitely be signing for in his new contract, you use a ratio of 2.8M per WS for a cap of 100M. So if we assume he stabilizes a little below his all-star year, at say 8 WS/year, he is in theory worth 22.4M per year over the length of his contract, so a contract like 20M, 21.6M, 23.2M, 24.7M for a 4 year deal.

Keep in mind that even though DD provides solid but not great per minute WS, playing minutes has value. He plays a lot of minutes and with last year excepted, plays a lot of games. That has value. Now, maybe it is not fair to assume DD will keep up his iron man streak and play every game into his thirties. So scaling it back to 70 games per season means an AAV of 19.6M, or a contract starting around 17.5M and rising from there for 4 years.

This of course is all dependent on if you assign value by WS. There are defensive aspects that are not captured by WS.

But using total WS passes the smell test much better in terms of the best players in the game.

Last year:
Steph Curry was worth 27.5M in a 63M cap.
LeBron James was worth 18M (note that he missed a bunch of games and struggled for the first half)
James Harden was worth 28.7M.
Anthony Davis was worth 24.5M.

Still not perfect, obviously, but it lines up roughly with superstar salaries and superstar production.

Now the question becomes, would you pay Derozan a salary similar or slightly less to the bolded? If not, is just letting him walk a viable option to you?

I say keep him at all costs, and hopefully Masai negotiates him down. I know building a great team is based on getting value (paying less than guys are worth), but it's also built on retaining your best players, because we get zero value from Demar playing for someone else.

Retain him, and then trade him later if you want. You don't let one of your best players, and therefore best assets, walk for nothing. DD signed to a 4 year deal could bring back a serious return in trade. Letting him go doesn't even give us much cap space, so the opportunity cost is huge.

[JWash]

Now the question becomes, would you pay Derozan a salary similar or slightly less to the bolded? If not, is just letting him walk a viable option to you?

I say keep him at all costs, and hopefully Masai negotiates him down. I know building a great team is based on getting value (paying less than guys are worth), but it's also built on retaining your best players, because we get zero value from Demar playing for someone else.

Retain him, and then trade him later if you want. You don't let one of your best players, and therefore best assets, walk for nothing. DD signed to a 4 year deal could bring back a serious return in trade. Letting him go doesn't even give us much cap space, so the opportunity cost is huge.

This. Also good luck trying to sign top level FAs after DD walks. I know people think shit like that doesn't matter, but around the league DD is perceived as our 1st or 2nd best player depending on who you ask (that player poll in the offseason said 1st). So him just dipping on the team because we don't want to go to $20M instead of $17M is going to reflect very poorly on us as a franchise.

Worst case you've slightly overpaid but still have a valuable asset. If Masai can sell Trashnani with his 48 TS% for a losing team the year before, making 10M in 2012-13 (when the cap was $58M, compared to the >$100M it's going to be after 2017) to the Knicks and get multiple draft picks back. Idk how he wouldn't be able to sell DeRozan, an all-star with Team USA experience and the primary scorer for a winning basketball team in a deal. So this talk of him somehow becoming untradeable doesn't make much sense.

[Snooch]

Here's the thing Snooch, when a player's contract is up, he can just leave. So if Durant wants out of OKC, he'll get out of OKC and they'll get nothing in return. If you give them the option of nothing, or something, they'll most likely take something. Would OKC rather have nothing, or would they rather have two 1sts and Demarre Carroll? That's just one scenario, slice up the roster however you like. OKC is the one who will be over a barrell. Toronto won't be Durant's only option, so if they won't make a deal with us, he goes to Washington and OKC once again gets nothing in return. Hopefully this clears things up for you.

you condescension is annoying.

and your posts is false.

remember, we NEED them to facilitate a sign and trade, Durant can cry and pout all he wants to come to toronto, but if we dont have the capspace we cannot force anything. there is NOTHING we can do without capspace except hope that OKC likes what we can offer in a sign and trade, cause if they dont want to trade, they do not have to. Durant cannot sign here either way...he would then have to move on to a team with capspace. okc wont be over any barrel as....once again....WE HAVE NO CAPSPACE...and as i pointed out a bunch of time...WE CANNOT SIGN DURANT WITHOUT CAPSPACE...can WITHOUT CAPSPACE we CANNOT put okc over any barrel.

k.

thx

hopefully that clears things up for you.

[Snooch]

Also playing off ball isn't purely just coming off screens for catch and shoot. It can also mean simply just catching the ball on the move and making a strong dribble drive to the rim. Most of DD's bad decisions come when he tries to create something out of nothing 25 feet from the basket. Essentially, taking him off the ball more and using him as more of a wide receiver instead of a quarterback could do wonders for his efficiency. And it would also allow him to play effectively next to a legitimate superstar if we ever got one.

Playing off-ball doesn't mean you can't dribble the basketball when you receive it, it simply means that you are not the one initiating your offense the majority of the time. And yes there is significant value in having a guy who is dangerous going to the rim or out of high post sets, who can exploit mismatches off switches, with the ability to hit the corner 3 --- be used in such a manner.

yeah, joseph does it very very very very well at only 7 millionj per year...and he is a better shooter, a better playmaker and a MUCH better defender.

[Snooch]

I'm pretty sure everyone understands the topic. The problem is you're trying to create some weird, narrow definition of what off-ball play is so that DeRozan doesn't/can't fit into it.

its you who is constantly changing the goalposts of all debates once any of your arguements gets demolished.....only coming back to one of

A) we dont have a superstar.....

or

b) well if you would pay demar 17 milllion under this cap blah blah blah

[Primer]

you condescension is annoying.

and your posts is false.

remember, we NEED them to facilitate a sign and trade, Durant can cry and pout all he wants to come to toronto, but if we dont have the capspace we cannot force anything. there is NOTHING we can do without capspace except hope that OKC likes what we can offer in a sign and trade, cause if they dont want to trade, they do not have to. Durant cannot sign here either way...he would then have to move on to a team with capspace. okc wont be over any barrel as....once again....WE HAVE NO CAPSPACE...and as i pointed out a bunch of time...WE CANNOT SIGN DURANT WITHOUT CAPSPACE...can WITHOUT CAPSPACE we CANNOT put okc over any barrel.

k.

thx

hopefully that clears things up for you.

One measly paragraph, and you couldn't even read the whole thing.

Here's the part you skipped for some reason:

Toronto won't be Durant's only option, so if they won't make a deal with us, he goes to Washington and OKC once again gets nothing in return.

So, when presented with the option of doing a sign and trade with Toronto to get some assets back, or watching him go to Washington and getting nothing in return, which option do you think they'll pick?