Andrea to Bobcats?

Quote:

---

DoNDaDDa wrote:

im ok with the pick. what im not ok with is taking on another albotross contract that CANT be amnestied to get that pick..

---

If we're talking about Thomas, then I agree. His contract is just as ugly as Bargnani's, and equally long. But Gordon has just 2 years remaining.

IMO, Gordon for 2 years plus a pick, is better than amnestying Bargnani plus no pick.

Mainly because Colangelo has not once used his cap space wisely in Toronto, so I have little reason to believe that amnestying Bargnani will help improve the team.

Furthermore, I don't expect the Raptors to be a legit playoff contender for years, which makes Gordon's contract less painful.

Quote:

---

ceez wrote:

about the draft, it's not a weak draft. there's just no clear cut superstars in the sense where so and so is OBVIOUSLY going #1 or #2 or whatever. Hollinger and Stein both have said there's a bunch of great players to be had, just no clear cut order. Stein (i believe?) went so far as to say this is a good draft to have a pick in simply because there will be very good players to pick from even later on.

which really sucks for us but whatever :mad:

---

this is another reason why it makes more sense to trade for a mid to late 1st & a decent piece rather then try to aquire a 1-10 pick & Albotross from Bobcats...just as much chance to get a prospect late in the draft..& less Money spent..

Quote:

---

DoNDaDDa wrote:

this is another reason why it makes more sense to trade for a mid to late 1st & a decent piece rather then try to aquire a 1-10 pick & Albotross from Bobcats...just as much chance to get a prospect late in the draft..& less Money spent..

---

I believe the only reason people are suggesting taking on an albatross contract in exchange for Bargnani is because nobody would be willing to take Bargnani otherwise.

If we can find a sucker GM willing to give us a late 1st rounder, plus a rotation player, then sign me up fast! But the odds seem unlikely.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

If we're talking about Thomas, then I agree. His contract is just as ugly as Bargnani's, and equally long. But Gordon has just 2 years remaining.

IMO, Gordon for 2 years plus a pick, is better than amnestying Bargnani plus no pick.

Mainly because Colangelo has not once used his cap space wisely in Toronto, so I have little reason to believe that amnestying Bargnani will help improve the team.

Furthermore, I don't expect the Raptors to be a legit playoff contender for years, which makes Gordon's contract less painful.

---

less painfull for who?

lets say the raps get a top 5 pick from Bobcats & Gordon for bargs...first off we already have a glut at the SG spot..then theres the fact Gordon makes 12.4mill this season & prob. more next season...witch prob is close to the money for bargs 3 year deal.. then we draft someone in the top 5 who very well could slip out of the lottory (since theres no clear cut stars) & have to pay him like a top 5 pick! instead of mid-late 1st rnd $ contract wise....every way i look at it, it makes no sense...theres better deals to be had im sure of it..

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

I believe the only reason people are suggesting taking on an albatross contract in exchange for Bargnani is because nobody would be willing to take Bargnani otherwise.

If we can find a sucker GM willing to give us a late 1st rounder, plus a rotation player, then sign me up fast! But the odds seem unlikely.

---

id even take a 2nd rounder if it ment taking no $ back LOL

i think Hedo was way harder to sell to other teams & BC moved him for Barbosa so i have no doubt wed can get a better deal then is suggested here for bargs..its not like hes completly useless... hes just completely useless to us..

Quote:

---

DoNDaDDa wrote:

less painfull for who?

lets say the raps get a top 5 pick from Bobcats & Gordon for bargs...first off we already have a glut at the SG spot..then theres the fact Gordon makes 12.4mill this season & prob. more next season...witch prob is close to the money for bargs 3 year deal.. then we draft someone in the top 5 who very well could slip out of the lottory (since theres no clear cut stars) & have to pay him like a top 5 pick! instead of mid-late 1st rnd $ contract wise....every way i look at it, it makes no sense...theres better deals to be had im sure of it..

---

Just because we acquire Gordon, it doesn't mean we need to play him ;). Let him rot at the end of the bench in street clothes.

As for re-signing a top-5 pick, that won't happen until 2018 (and only if he's worth it). Nothing to worry about.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

Just because we acquire Gordon, it doesn't mean we need to play him ;). Let him rot at the end of the bench in street clothes.

As for re-signing a top-5 pick, that won't happen until 2018 (and only if he's worth it). Nothing to worry about.

---

sounds even worse to me when u put it that way... & im sure MLSE would agree..

as for the Pick... i was actually talking the rookie scale deal not re-signing down the road...

http://www.hoopsworld.com/2012-13-rookie-salary-scale

as u can see above.. the higher the pick the higher his rookie deal is...no matter if u think there worth it or not your locked into that ..

nothing more i can say.. i just agree to disagree & move on

We can agree to disagree on the merits of taking on bad contracts in exchange for high picks.

But in terms of a draft pick's salary, I would consider the $1.4 million difference between a 5th pick and a 15th pick to be negligible...especially when viewed against the cap of $60 million (2%).

this thread got noticed... as an example of what not to do in rumors.

http://www.rufusonfire.com/2013/1/22...ces-for-rumors

everyone should have realized if the cats sought rebounding then Andrea is not your man.

we've made the big time guys!

I don't think anyone here confused this "rumour" with something likely to happen. It was just a discussion point. Nothing wrong with that.

As much as I want him out of town, he ain't goin nowhere. He comes off the bench. End of story.

Quote:

---

ceez wrote:

Jordon owes us anyways after the Chandler debacle

---

this x1000000000000000000

Quote:

---

Matt52 wrote:

this thread got noticed... as an example of what not to do in rumors.

http://www.rufusonfire.com/2013/1/22...ces-for-rumors

everyone should have realized if the cats sought rebounding then Andrea is not your man.

---

He is rebounding quite well from his relationship with a supermodel. If they want a rebounding center, he is ideal for them.

I know its been beaten to death, but is anyone in Raptorland noticing the season Drummond is having?

http://www.nba.com/pistons/stats/2012

He's showing he's clearly better than JV at this point, and his athleticism suggests he has a higher ceiling too.

Now he is even in the conversation for ROY...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba...2_a2&eref=sihp

Why is it that in theory, everyone supports drafting the best player available, but in reality, GMs always draft based on positional need? To me its about acquiring assets at this point, even if they don't fit the long term plans. Had Colangelo drafted Drummond, he would already be the most valuable trading piece on the team...

Colangelo acknowledged Drummond's physical prowess, but was ultimately scared off by his attitude.

Not saying I agree with Colangelo, just pointing out that all things considered, Drummond may not have been the "best player available" in Colangelo's eyes.

Quote:

---

Nilanka wrote:

Colangelo acknowledged Drummond's physical prowess, but was ultimately scared off by his attitude.

Not saying I agree with Colangelo, just pointing out that all things considered, Drummond may not have been the "best player available" in Colangelo's eyes.

---

That's just it, "best" is such a subjective term. It's not just individual basketball skills that determines the "best" available player, but also attitude, potential for improvement (and ultimate projected ceiling), age, injury history, position (both scarcity of talent and team need), fit with current roster (does he need to contribute now, or can he be a multi-year project with current depth), etc...

Drummond's sub .500 free throw percentage is a little bit of a deterrent for me as well. Mind you, many big men have made names for themselves without a good free throw percentage (Shaq), but I'm still feeling good about having a guy like Valenciunas. Not only does he mix it up under the boards, he can hit his free throws as well. That's going to bump his points per game and efficiency way up, especially as he bulks up.

If the draft pick was a guy you imagine being on the team in 2/3 years then Ross was a great pick. If the draft pick was taken as a commodity (ie, something that you will use in a future transaction, but is not something you imagine being on the team in 2/3 years) then Drummond would have been the better pick.

I think Drummond is more valuable than Ross because of Drummond's intangibles. He could be a beast like Howard. Ross is a safe choice.. but he is better for this team. However if Colangelo trades Ross sooner than later, then Drummond would have made more sense. We can't speculate on which guy was better until we know what happens with Ross and this franchise.

So give it 2/3 years before we can really determine what was the better decision.


Also what does this have to do with Bargnani and the Bobcats?

As for Granger, he's getting assurances that the team has no intention of trading him. But if the right scenario comes along that lands the Pacers a young talented power forward or point guard, I think there's a good chance he's gone by the deadline. ESPN.com
INDIANA PACERS, TRADE, DANNY GRANGER | SHARE



I still consider Andrea young and definitely still talented and what coach in the league would turn down Jose Calderon