As for changing the identity or atmosphere of the team, I think trading Calderon who had a good season statistically and may have decent trade value atm would be better, we have bayless to replace him who is definately a better defender. If we can address the C position and fill that hole with a solid, imposing, shot blocking big, if we have sorted out our PG problem we can definately be a better defensive team and still keep Bargnani.
Now if trading Bargnani means that we can address some of these issues than im all for it, but if these issues can be addressed through free agency which we have tons of cap room for, and this season happens to be a good offseason for C's (Nene, Chandler, Gasol all free agents) then their is no need to trade him.
If however we cannot get a solid C, and I dont mean draft one, Im not in the camp of waiting 2-3 years to make the playoffs, a team needs a healthy balance between veterans and young guns, I want an experienced veteran C if that cant be obtained through free agency, then trading Bargnani should be our only option. If that isnt the case however I make the argument that we keep him, use our financial flexibility to address our issues, and keep a very dynamic scorer who I think is signed to a reasonable contract.
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!!
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.
Unfortunately they have crap to offer. Bargnani for Gortat and Pietrus was a missed deal that should have been.
PS> He can drop 45 on us for all I care. As long as we win.
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.
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.
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.
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"...
(just to be a prick)
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.