fair enough. do you see Jose as top-calibre?
I dont get your last point. Isnt it a good thing that we now have a good, young core moving forward with, even if its a product of past mistakes?
Its the one advantage this team has right now is they can figure out what Jose thinks he's worth and then use that as a starting point.
fair enough. do you see Jose as top-calibre?
? Reinholt claimed resigning/starting Jose would be the same mentality as what Colangelo did with Bargnani and Demar. With which I responded with :Quote:
1. How do you know which player is better?
he took that as I was comparing Lowry and Calderon. But thats not what I was getting at. (I was saying Calderon's numbers show Calderon is productive, efficient and consistent - something they never have with Demar or Bargnani. Demar/Bargnani situations were based on potential, Jose's would be based on results)Quote:
its the exact opposite mentality than overpaying Demar and keeping Bargnani. Jose is a good quality player that has proved it through consistency over the years. The advanced metrics you speak of regarding Lowry say that about Jose. He HAS produced. Demar and Bargnani not only have not produced, but have been rewarded for being net negative players whose entire role was based on 'potential' . The world of difference between those two ideas (ie. net productivity vs net liability and consistency/reliability vs potential) is enourmous.
If you are asking who do I think is a better player, I think its Lowry. But the marginal difference between Lowry and Jose isn't that big. And with both their contracts ending in the near future, both to be on new ones (Jose's likely to be much much lower than Lowry's), and the need to rebuild (and therefore both should be seen as assets to that end) keeping Lowry just because he's a 'better player' is fools gold.
None of this means I'm against trading Jose or keeping Lowry.
Talking point guards, I do like Trey Burke in the draft. Actually reminds me of Lowry but better shape and better passer in college (comparing assist and turnover stats of both in college).
Trade Jose in February - get mid 1st pick
Trade Lowry in February '14
Start Burke in '14-15
How about that loyalty? lol
I'm reading this thread and I just don't understand Craiger's position
What is your argument exactly? That everyone is mediocre so we should keep them?
Keeping Jose is a short term mentality anyway you slice it. It has nothing to do with who is better (although you seem to be one of the only people who thinks they are at the same level), it is simply a matter of us having a good trade chip in Jose, and a talented pg in Lowry.
Why keep two players who are productive when we are so unproductive at other positions? Why keep a player in his 30's when we have a better one in his 20's?
I just don't understand your plan here? Is there some context that I am missing?
$12M a year for Lowry is overpaying; he has not done anything yet to justify such a salary. Some people on these boards call him a winner and I just don't see what this is based upon. He's a good player and I would prefer we keep him instead of Jose due to being younger, but at $12M at year, he better improve a lot or this is just another overpaid player on the roster.
really great article, especially the bit about Lowry and Calderon's defense
Pretty sure I agreed $12M was an overpayment. That is what I meant by a tough pill to swallow. In other words, I would not pay Lowry $12M per season. My apologies if I was clear on that. The sequence I laid out (in jest) would also not see the Raptors pay KL$12M. He is under contract at a team option of $6.2M next season.
Jose is a good trade chip - but so is Lowry. Arguably a better one.
Lowry is a talented PG - but so is Jose. And I do think Lowry is 'better', I just don't that gap is a large as some think.
I don't think the team should keep 2 productive players at the same position - I think they should trade one, if not possibly both in the right circumstance (ie. the right return)
Jose is in his 30s, but he also plays a game that lends itself to a long shelf life mitigating some of the concerns about his age. Also Lowry's injury history combined with his style of play shouldn't be ignored as an additional risk
Then there is contractual considerations.
There is alot more to considering which direction this team should be heading (in regards to their PGs) than Lowry is 26 and 'better' than Jose, therefore trade Jose. If this team wasn't in a position that they should rebuild and/or Lowry was on a long term contract I'd say the above makes total sense and wouldn't question it. But since neither of the above are true (in my opinion) alot changes. There are alot of ways to 'slice' resigning Jose as not being short term thinking when you start looking at the risk vs reward of the long term potential of multiple opporunities.
If and when we trade Jose I hope we get a quality back up PG in return because Lowry has not shown that he can stay healthy for long streches of an NBA season.
I am not one of the people who thinks Jose is the long term answer at point guard for the Raptors. If he is brought back on a reduced salary for 2-3 years after this one, with the plan for him to be backup, I would be okay with it. I would also be fine with him moving on, and using the cap space to fill other holes on the roster.
However I have to agree with a lot of what Craiger is saying. Prior to getting himself hurt in the Portland game, Lowry was not playing very well and the team was rapidly spiralling out of control. Define it however you like; hero ball, selfish, or whatever, Lowry was still able to post decent numbers for himself but was not playing in a way that was conducive to winning basketball. Their terrible record and the fact that he was called out by his teammates and lumped into the same category as Bargnani following the Denver game speaks volumes.
When Calderon took over after that, the team enjoyed a dramatic shift for the better. They scored more and with an efficiency that put them in the top tier of the entire league. They allowed less points to be scored on them. For the first time all season, they enjoyed ANY type of sustained success and appeared to be gaining traction. Yes, I understand the schedule was soft, but the team lost plenty of winnable contests early on in the season with Lowry leading the way. Besides, I think when a young team like the Raptors begin to take care of business in the games that they should, it's a good start.
I think Calderon has earned the right to start for the time being, and I'm not sure why the fans are so against that idea. The concept that players should be given minutes and starting roles based on what they should be doing, their NBA live rating, etc. instead of how they are contributing to a winning basketball situation is what got the Raptors so deeply into the Bargnani fiasco. If the team goes back into the tank and Lowry is outplaying Calderon again then I am all for switching it up and giving the most deserving of the two the starters role. However sometimes I feel like the narrative surrounding each player - Lowry is the pitbull from Philly while Calderon is the soft, European loser - becomes more important to the fans than what is actually happening on the court.
Yes, it sucks that Colangelo gave up a lottery pick for a player that is currently a backup. That is just another case of terrible asset management from one of the worst GMs in the league. But it is not Calderon's fault, nor is it Lowry's, so trying to allocate playing time based on that is only going to compact the original error.