Everything Derozan

[Axel]

The question was how he played at home overall. Anyways im done. You can continue your crusade.

Actually the question was "how many bad games out of 14" - to which you pointed to the home games as evidence of more than 2.

[Superjudge]

Who cares.

Past is Past.

Big Game tonight.

[Barolt]

Who cares.

Past is Past.

Big Game tonight.

There are over 18000 posts in this thread. I'd say a few people care.

[Chr1s1anL]

Who cares.

Past is Past.

Big Game tonight.

+1

[Chr1s1anL]

Actually the question was "how many bad games out of 14" - to which you pointed to the home games as evidence of more than 2.

Please stop quoting me. I don't want to take part in you and Barolt's crusade anymore.

[hateslosing]

You are on a relentless crusade. This thread should not be more popular right now than a game a day thread, just an onslaught of guys talking about how derozan sucks.

No. No he's not.

He might be top 5 at his position(and even that comes with qualifications on fit), but he's not top 20 talent.

LeBron James, Steph Curry, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Anthony Davis, Karl-Anthony Towns, Damian Lillard, James Harden, Dwyane Wade, Kyle Lowry, Draymond Green, Klay Thompson, Paul Millsap, Kawhi Leonard, LaMarcus Aldridge, DeMarcus Cousins, Jimmy Butler, Paul George, Blake Griffin. That's 20 guys all easily better than DeMar.

To interject: I don't think that's the question, the issue is that he is likely the best player at his position that we can get. Letting him walk so we can downgrade at the position doesn't seem like the best strategy.

Demar the chucker who doesn't pass, defend or take smart shots - regardless of the numbers, that's the player we saw play these last 2 series and several seasons. The numbers don't have to be the same because the issue is the approach to the game. He chooses to take bad shots. He chooses not to pass the ball. He chooses to take bad gambles on defence.

So the main thrust of your argument is we should let the top usage player on one of the top 2 teams in the conference walk because he takes bad shots and doesn't pass enough? Is the implication here that we are good in spite of him?

I don't really understand how you think not paying him will help us get closer to a title. It's not like we have Klay Thompson in the wings here, he is the best player likely to actually be available to us this year (or for the next few years) to spend money on and we will be lucky if he doesn't decide he wants to sign somewhere else.

[Axel]

Please stop quoting me. I don't want people to prove I don't make any sense.

Fixed for you.

You like to argue as much as anyone, but you clearly lost sight of whatever point you were trying to make was.

And as long as you post, I'll quote.

[Chr1s1anL]

Fixed for you.

You like to argue as much as anyone, but you clearly lost sight of whatever point you were trying to make was.

And as long as you post, I'll quote.

Very mature of you. Kudos.

[ball4life]

LOL @ this "debate". lets just hope Demar has at least average games going forward. Here is hoping he watched enough video breakdowns of JR Smith's defence and abuse the shit out of him. Long as there's no long 2s and average D on Smith/ Shumpert I can live with that.

People saying Smith guarded Korver well...remember.... Demar is a totally different player. I expect him to go off..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Barolt]

To interject: I don't think that's the question, the issue is that he is likely the best player at his position that we can get. Letting him walk so we can downgrade at the position doesn't seem like the best strategy.



So the main thrust of your argument is we should let the top usage player on one of the top 2 teams in the conference walk because he takes bad shots and doesn't pass enough? Is the implication here that we are good in spite of him?

I don't really understand how you think not paying him will help us get closer to a title. It's not like we have Klay Thompson in the wings here, he is the best player likely to actually be available to us this year (or for the next few years) to spend money on and we will be lucky if he doesn't decide he wants to sign somewhere else.

My opinion, and what I'm assuming a few others feel as well, is that we aren't necessarily good in spite of DeMar, but we aren't good because of him either. His impact tends to range from slight negative to slight positive, with the odd contribution that's a large impact one way or the other.

We had a fantastic bench this year. Lowry and the bench was a flat out dominant unit, and won a lot of early 2nd/4th quarter stretches for us, leading to wins. JV had the best season a Raptor has ever had in terms of WS/48.

We have a lot going for us outside of DeMar. So it's not so much that he makes us worse, as that we can be better by redistributing those offensive possessions elsewhere. And if DeMar isn't a more effective scorer than our other options, like he hasn't been in the playoffs, he doesn't bring enough of anything else to justify anywhere near what he'll cost this summer.

[Axel]

So the main thrust of your argument is we should let the top usage player on one of the top 2 teams in the conference walk because he takes bad shots and doesn't pass enough? Is the implication here that we are good in spite of him?

I don't really understand how you think not paying him will help us get closer to a title. It's not like we have Klay Thompson in the wings here, he is the best player likely to actually be available to us this year (or for the next few years) to spend money on and we will be lucky if he doesn't decide he wants to sign somewhere else.

The usage hasn't match the production, so not really impressive since usage can literally be given to anyone.

You let him walk because he isn't good enough for the salary that some team is going to offer him and that the team can do better with that money.

Over-paying a player for the next 5 years is a bad move for a franchise. So maybe we don't have someone ready to step up into that role next year, but you don't make a 5 year mistake to cover for a problem that could be solved in 1 year.

[white men can't jump]

The usage hasn't match the production, so not really impressive since usage can literally be given to anyone.

You let him walk because he isn't good enough for the salary that some team is going to offer him and that the team can do better with that money.

Over-paying a player for the next 5 years is a bad move for a franchise. So maybe we don't have someone ready to step up into that role next year, but you don't make a 5 year mistake to cover for a problem that could be solved in 1 year.

The justification we see the most is that "who cares if we pay him. Someone will and we may as well so we can use him as an asset even if we don't want him long term". I have to say, I'm really becoming very skeptical of that line of thinking. How much trade value do non-max players with max contracts retain? What did Atlanta get for Joe Johnson, a much better player than DeMar in his prime? Literally not a single piece that did anything for the franchise. A mid-late first round pick and a bunch of crappy role players/filler. What is the point of re-signing someone so they can be that kind of asset?

[DanH]

What a mess in here.

To answer Joey's question, with DeMar on the court the Raptors average 12.8 OREBs per 100 possessions. Without him, 13.3. So, no, he does not help generate offensive boards in any measurable way.

[Axel]

The justification we see the most is that "who cares if we pay him. Someone will and we may as well so we can use him as an asset even if we don't want him long term". I have to say, I'm really becoming very skeptical of that line of thinking. How much trade value do non-max players with max contracts retain? What did Atlanta get for Joe Johnson, a much better player than DeMar in his prime? Literally not a single piece that did anything for the franchise. A mid-late first round pick and a bunch of crappy role players/filler. What is the point of re-signing someone so they can be that kind of asset?

Funnily enough, Atlanta got some expiring contracts (Jordan Farmer and the like), Deshawn Stevenson and a 2013 draft pick that ended up netting them John Salmons from us for Bebe (the pick) and Lou.

[Axel]

Funnily enough, Atlanta got some expiring contracts (Jordan Farmer and the like), Deshawn Stevenson and a 2013 draft pick that ended up netting them John Salmons from us for Bebe (the pick) and Lou.

No wait, the Bebe pick was direct from Dallas. The pick was 2 picks later from Houston via Brooklyn and was Shane Larkin.