Raptors Targeting a Free Agent Centre? Chisholm's 2 cents post #71

Quote:

---

Apollo wrote:

You're not going to build a winning culture by avoiding talent. Every team needs good veteran players, even rebuilding teams. Chandler is only 28 years old. He could be part of a long term plan.

---

Fully agree.

I'm not sure where this "winning now is bad" mentality came from. Even if you don't plan on 'winning', you should ALWAYS instill an attitude and persona that winning is the goal. When the Raptors were their best, we had ALOT of vets, and we traded young guys to get them. Having Willis, Oakley, Curry etc. on the team did far more for us than any coach we've ever hired.

You NEED to have players that will hold everyone accountable, and for the most part, young guys don't take that on in an effective and positive way. Chandler would bring accountability to the roster unlike any we've seen in a VERY long time.

That's why I supported bringing on Matt Barnes last year. And trading for Diaw and Chandler. You can never start to early in creating a winning culture. Even if you're not actually winning.

Quote:

---

Apollo wrote:

You're not going to build a winning culture by avoiding talent. Every team needs good veteran players, even rebuilding teams. Chandler is only 28 years old. He could be part of a long term plan.

---

You also don't build a winning culture by getting players whenever. It's about timing. Oklahoma, although an overused example, waited for the right time to bring in veteran talent, by trading for Perkins. In fact, when they tried to trade for Chandler, they were already a playoff team with the right foundation. The main thing signing Chandler would do would be to placate fans wanting to see forward momentum. Unfortunately it also would most likely have a negative effect on the long term prospects of building a contender. The Raptors simply don't have the talent, yet, to be thinking about trying to force the team to make the playoffs. It's WAY too premature.

Quote:

---

Tim W. wrote:

You also don't build a winning culture by getting players whenever. It's about timing. Oklahoma, although an overused example, waited for the right time to bring in veteran talent, by trading for Perkins. In fact, when they tried to trade for Chandler, they were already a playoff team with the right foundation. The main thing signing Chandler would do would be to placate fans wanting to see forward momentum. Unfortunately it also would most likely have a negative effect on the long term prospects of building a contender. The Raptors simply don't have the talent, yet, to be thinking about trying to force the team to make the playoffs. It's WAY too premature.

---

But how is signing Chandler "forcing" the team into the playoffs?
And by signing Chandler would they not be adding to this 'talent' that we apparently lack?
Making the playoffs is NEVER a bad thing for a growing team.
For ever Oklahoma, there are just as many young many teams that only needed a little guidance. From within.
Check Memphis. Adding Randolph was the best thing that ever happened to them. Before him they were dismal.
But its about creating the environment that is supportive of winning, and by doing so, you lay a foundation with which to build on going forward. I don't see how adding a proven defensive anchor to a growing, defensively challenged team is a bad thing. Ever.

What would the "negative effects" be on the "long term prospects of building a contender", be exactly Tim?

Quote:

---

joey_hesketh wrote:

But how is signing Chandler "forcing" the team into the playoffs?
And by signing Chandler would they not be adding to this 'talent' that we apparently lack?
Making the playoffs is NEVER a bad thing for a growing team.
For ever Oklahoma, there are just as many young many teams that only needed a little guidance. From within.
Check Memphis. Adding Randolph was the best thing that ever happened to them. Before him they were dismal.
But its about creating the environment that is supportive of winning, and by doing so, you lay a foundation with which to build on going forward. I don't see how adding a proven defensive anchor to a growing, defensively challenged team is a bad thing. Ever.

What would the "negative effects" be on the "long term prospects of building a contender", be exactly Tim?

---

Well, let's deal with Memphis, first. When Memphis added Randolph, Memphis had Rudy Gay, Marc Gasol, OJ Mayo, Mike Conley and had just drafted Hasheem Thabeet with the 2nd pick in the draft. And while Randolph's success in Memphis surprised many, I'm not quite sure how that strengthens your case. Memphis has averaged 43 wins over the last two years, has no real franchise player, is topped out salary-wise and despite a great playoff run this past spring, is not considered a real contender. And they still had way more talent when Randolph came on board than the Raptors do right now. IF Rudy Gay turns into an All-NBA player, which is a possibility, then Memphis has a chance at becoming a real contender. Otherwise, they'll be the West's answer to Atlanta.

As for what Chandler would do to the Raptors, he very well might turn them into a mediocre team, not bad enough to get a high draft pick, which they desperately need, and not talented enough to do anything in the playoffs once they get there. A slightly less talented Indiana, if you will.

"Best" case scenario, Chandler turns the Raptor's defense around and helps them make the playoffs. Then what? Do you honestly think they have the talent to build on that? The team, with the talent they have, have a ceiling of about 45 wins. They have no franchise player. They have no sure-fire All-Star. Even WITH Chandler, they don't have even the potential talent to be Atlanta. And Atlanta's pretty good, but they're not even a contender. DeRozan would be lucky if he gets up to Joe Johnson's level (perennial All-Star). Same with Ed Davis and Al Horford (basically Davis' best case scenario). Bargnani, at best, is a big man's version of Jamaal Crawford, but even more of a liability defensively because he's a big man. Chandler would basically fill Josh Smith's role. And the Raptors don't have a SF even as good as Marvin Williams.

And Atlanta isn't a contender, and is probably thinking about making some major changes because they can't get past the second round of the playoffs and realize they aren't ever going to be a contender with the personnel they have.

And if the Raptors DO make the playoffs, they have almost no chance of adding any elite talent to the team. You seem to be so quick to get the car on the road that you haven't seemed to notice that the car doesn't even have a decent engine. I just don't understand why people are so quick to get the team back to mediocrity, where they've spent most of their 16 years.

Joel Przybilla.

Quote:

---

joey_hesketh wrote:

Fully agree.

I'm not sure where this "winning now is bad" mentality came from. Even if you don't plan on 'winning', you should ALWAYS instill an attitude and persona that winning is the goal. When the Raptors were their best, we had ALOT of vets, and we traded young guys to get them. Having Willis, Oakley, Curry etc. on the team did far more for us than any coach we've ever hired.

You NEED to have players that will hold everyone accountable, and for the most part, young guys don't take that on in an effective and positive way. Chandler would bring accountability to the roster unlike any we've seen in a VERY long time.

That's why I supported bringing on Matt Barnes last year. And trading for Diaw and Chandler. You can never start to early in creating a winning culture. Even if you're not actually winning.

---

When did Tyson Chandler become the modern day version of Charles Oakley?

Let's not let out short term memories turn Chandler into some type of transcendant leader. He was fantastic this year in Dallas and was a big reason that they won the title but he was also terrible in Charlotte the year before and had an average season in New Orleans prior to that. He was in a contract year this season and was playing for a team that had NBA title aspirations - two giant motivational factors for a guy that hasn't always brought his best efforts as the times have gotten tough. He played his best basketball this season when he had the most to gain personally from a financial standpoint and when the team around him was one of the best in the league - Bill Russell he is not!

He was so inconsistent in Charlotte that after the deal with Toronto broke down last summer, they ended up trading him to the Mavs for the equivalency of some cap space(Dampier's waivable contract and filler). 365 days later and we want to give $70 million over 5 years to a guy who was virtually given away the previous summer. To me, that sends up a red flag.

And while I admit that injuries played a role in some of his struggles the past few years, isn't that just one more reason why we shouldn't be throwing a bucket of money at this guy?

I'm not guaranteeing that Chandler won't earn his money on his next deal but if we look at his history, I have a hard time envisioning him doing it for the Raps. He's had his fair share of injuries and is a front runner. That doesn't exactly match up with the "locker room presence" you are describing. In fact, it could work in quite the opposite fashion, possibly deteriorating whatever good chemistry that's developing in Toronto.

So, no chandler, no dalembert, no long time solution because we got Jonas coming over in a year. Yet we will need a starting center as Bargnani - according to casey - will not be our starting center. My prediction: if he does not sign in europe we will sign Gadzuric for the minimum or close to it. Around 33, no ego, no offensive game except off offensive rebounds, but a great energy guy and good rebounder and shotblocker if he still has some hops. He'll start and average about 15 minutes a game which will leave enough minutes for davis and johnson.

Quote:

---

Chris in Brampton:
The raptors obviously have a need at the centre position. Would you go out and spend big money on a free agenct centre like Gasol, Nene or Chandler knowing that Jonas was coming over in a year or just try to find a cheap filler for neaxt season?

Larry Coon:
I don't think they're going to be contenders next year, even with one of those players. Gasol will be restricted, and I think for any of the three the Raptors would have to pay top dollar -- which would make it harder for them to cover the rest of their holes. My first inclination is that they're better off being patient and waiting for Valančiūnas.


Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/chat.asp?c...#ixzz1U9oH0a8P

---

With Casey and BC on 2 year leashes, I wonder if they will truly stick to the blueprint.

Quote:

---

Dirk Nowitzki was the MVP of the Mavericks, the Finals, and by most accounts the NBA's best player in the entire playoffs.

But to Nowitzki, the MVP of his team was the new guy, veteran center Tyson Chandler. A few weeks after the excitement of winning it all, Chandler is relaxing at home, and considering the lockout, which coincides with the first unrestricted free agency of his career.

In late June, after the title, the Mavericks had a period when they could have negotiated a new contract with you before the lockout. What happened?

We talked about getting something done before the lockout, but it just didn't happen. ... we were so far apart, we might as well not have even met.

---

Source: ESPN.com

The Mavs must have had hard cap implications on the brain.