View Poll Results: Would you do Gay for #1?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    21 41.18%
  • No

    19 37.25%
  • Cavs would have to add more to the deal

    11 21.57%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9
Results 161 to 172 of 172

Thread: If Cavs are looking to move top pick, Gay for #1?

  1. #161
    Raptors Republic Starter Dino4life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Axel wrote: View Post
    Which could lead us to having an even better pick in the loaded 2014 draft. Trading Gay for a Top 4 pick is the fastest way to rebuild. We add another young guy to develop who wont help us win games, but will help us win ping pong balls for next year.
    That approach is fun in THEORY, this is not a game, some owner is investing hundreds of millions of dollars, so you got to make more safe decisions, look at the bobcats this will be their 4th top 10 pick in 3 years, they've moved back the last 2 years, this year they moved back 2 spots, and they are still gonna suck for the foreseeable future.

    If stern was still around i might consider it, with the new direction of the team as canada's team, not rigging the lottery for us next year would be foolish of them, Canadian BBall hero playing for Canada's team in his prime, that's a lot of money for the league, if Wiggins lives up to the hype, Montreal might get a team when they expand for seattle.

  2. #162
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    8,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Axel wrote: View Post
    Which could lead us to having an even better pick in the loaded 2014 draft. Trading Gay for a Top 4 pick is the fastest way to rebuild. We add another young guy to develop who wont help us win games, but will help us win ping pong balls for next year.
    The fastest way isn't necessarily the right way. So many people always advocate this "tanking" strategy. It is not a strategy that has worked for anybody. Not even OKC, since they never actually tanked. They never entered a season planning to lose. They entered seasons to develop young talent with an aim toward winning.

    We are not Boston. We are not a contending team that has run its course and needs to rebuild.

    Nor are we Charlotte. We are not a team so lacking in talent that even adding an all-star would keep us bad. If we managed to add another all-star, while we may not be contenders, we could fairly easily (within a year or two) leap over some other teams in the East not Miami, Indy or Chicago.

    Being in the middle of the pack is the most awkward position to be in, because it presents a lot of options. But I think Toronto is not in a position to tank. We have several good young players, some who could be important pieces (of varying roles) to a good team, and some who could be used to acquire better talent or better fits.

    For a middle of the pack team that's "falling" into tanking, think Milwaukee. Free agents, a young team, no real way to keep them competitive. If they don't tank, that's a bit crazy. I mean, with Ellis and Jennings gone, Ilyasova and Sanders become their best players, with no perimeter help whatsoever. They don't even have to make moves to tank....Just stand pat and don't try to improve. In a way, they'd tanking for the same reasons as Boston, just shedding a core that never made it as far.

    Bottom line, the Raptors are not a team with a fading core, nor with an obviously lacking core la Charlotte or Phoenix. Tanking is not the natural next step at all, IMO.

  3. #163
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    8,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    And you know what? I'm not even suggesting that Toronto shouldn't tank...but that it should only be done if it makes sense...

    Toronto tank scenario:

    -Team is more or less the same going into next year....a new PF instead of Bargs makes little difference
    -Gay gets injured early and Lowry has a bad attitude (or also gets injured)
    -Team thus struggles out of the gate, and mirror last year's awful start
    -Instead of desperately trying to salvage the season, Ujiri starts making trades, starting with Lowry and his bad attitude.
    -With no PG, the team becomes even worse....Ujiri fields offers on Ross, DeMar, Gay and Amir, not to shop them, but to see if any deal helps the team...likely that one or more get traded in such a scenario

    -Team is left basically with little depth and talent because of circumstances, so tanking makes sense. If they can tank while Gay is injured, still develop JV and end up with a top 5, or even top 10 pick, that's great. That would be an acceptable tank scenario to me

  4. #164
    Raptors Republic Superstar Axel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    2,849
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Dino4life wrote: View Post
    That approach is fun in THEORY, this is not a game, some owner is investing hundreds of millions of dollars, so you got to make more safe decisions, look at the bobcats this will be their 4th top 10 pick in 3 years, they've moved back the last 2 years, this year they moved back 2 spots, and they are still gonna suck for the foreseeable future.
    This has nothing to do with being a game. We are stuck in the middle class, not good enough to make the playoffs with a cap sized roster. We have very little in flexibility or future if we stay where we are. Why not move an expensive player who is redundant with Derozan (younger & cheaper while still fairly similarly skilled) while adding a young prospect (Mclemore might slip to 4, or Trey Burke or Anthony Bennett) to develop.

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    The fastest way isn't necessarily the right way. So many people always advocate this "tanking" strategy. It is not a strategy that has worked for anybody. Not even OKC, since they never actually tanked. They never entered a season planning to lose. They entered seasons to develop young talent with an aim toward winning.

    We are not Boston. We are not a contending team that has run its course and needs to rebuild.

    Nor are we Charlotte. We are not a team so lacking in talent that even adding an all-star would keep us bad. If we managed to add another all-star, while we may not be contenders, we could fairly easily (within a year or two) leap over some other teams in the East not Miami, Indy or Chicago.

    Being in the middle of the pack is the most awkward position to be in, because it presents a lot of options. But I think Toronto is not in a position to tank. We have several good young players, some who could be important pieces (of varying roles) to a good team, and some who could be used to acquire better talent or better fits.
    I agree that the fastest way isn't necessarily the best way, but in our current situation we either scrap it now, or wait a few more years and either a) get lucky and evolve into a playoff team with our current roster or b) scrap it 3 years down the road.

    I'm also not saying we tank. I'm saying we should remove an overpaid player who doesn't make us significantly better and acquire a young player with a high upside that we, like OKC did, could develop while hoping to win. The idea that we'd get a better pick in 2014 isn't advocating tanking, it's being realistic about this team's chances next season if we made the trade. Think about it this way, would you rather pay Rudy Gay $16M or add a Trey Burke and then maybe the #8 pick in the loaded 2014 draft? If you add Burke, then Lowry is expendable too. You could trade Lowry for a SF who can shoot the ball or for another pick in 2014.

    We are obviously not Boston because has won games and even with their aging core, still has young studs like Rondo and Bradley to build around. Once they jettison the veterans deals, then they will have the flexibility to make further moves. We don't have an easy route to get flexibility, other than dealing away Gay for a draft pick.

    This draft isn't the best ever, but it has a lot of quality 1-10. I really wouldn't care if they Raps got the #1 pick or the #7 pick, because they are essentially the same, but really are only options are #1 or #4. Those are the only teams picking up there that would even consider taking on Gay's contract and fit their needs. But a draft pick in a mediocre draft still gives us young talent, financial flexibility and possibly a better pick next year. We need the first 2 to be able to move forward, the 2014 pick is just icing on the cake.

  5. #165
    Raptors Republic Superstar isaacthompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Oakville
    Posts
    3,584
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    And you know what? I'm not even suggesting that Toronto shouldn't tank...but that it should only be done if it makes sense...

    Toronto tank scenario:

    -Team is more or less the same going into next year....a new PF instead of Bargs makes little difference
    -Gay gets injured early and Lowry has a bad attitude (or also gets injured)
    -Team thus struggles out of the gate, and mirror last year's awful start
    -Instead of desperately trying to salvage the season, Ujiri starts making trades, starting with Lowry and his bad attitude.
    -With no PG, the team becomes even worse....Ujiri fields offers on Ross, DeMar, Gay and Amir, not to shop them, but to see if any deal helps the team...likely that one or more get traded in such a scenario

    -Team is left basically with little depth and talent because of circumstances, so tanking makes sense. If they can tank while Gay is injured, still develop JV and end up with a top 5, or even top 10 pick, that's great. That would be an acceptable tank scenario to me
    Totally agree. Tanking is only an option if there is a significant amount of injuries.

    Seeing as this may be the best core we've had in years, I'd like to see what this team can do with a full training camp under their belts. Add a late-1st/early-2nd round pick to the mix (preferrably a big or knock-down shooter) and I'm happy.
    Twitter - @thekid_it

  6. #166
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    8,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Axel wrote: View Post
    This has nothing to do with being a game. We are stuck in the middle class, not good enough to make the playoffs with a cap sized roster. We have very little in flexibility or future if we stay where we are. Why not move an expensive player who is redundant with Derozan (younger & cheaper while still fairly similarly skilled) while adding a young prospect (Mclemore might slip to 4, or Trey Burke or Anthony Bennett) to develop.



    I agree that the fastest way isn't necessarily the best way, but in our current situation we either scrap it now, or wait a few more years and either a) get lucky and evolve into a playoff team with our current roster or b) scrap it 3 years down the road.

    I'm also not saying we tank. I'm saying we should remove an overpaid player who doesn't make us significantly better and acquire a young player with a high upside that we, like OKC did, could develop while hoping to win. The idea that we'd get a better pick in 2014 isn't advocating tanking, it's being realistic about this team's chances next season if we made the trade. Think about it this way, would you rather pay Rudy Gay $16M or add a Trey Burke and then maybe the #8 pick in the loaded 2014 draft? If you add Burke, then Lowry is expendable too. You could trade Lowry for a SF who can shoot the ball or for another pick in 2014.

    We are obviously not Boston because has won games and even with their aging core, still has young studs like Rondo and Bradley to build around. Once they jettison the veterans deals, then they will have the flexibility to make further moves. We don't have an easy route to get flexibility, other than dealing away Gay for a draft pick.

    This draft isn't the best ever, but it has a lot of quality 1-10. I really wouldn't care if they Raps got the #1 pick or the #7 pick, because they are essentially the same, but really are only options are #1 or #4. Those are the only teams picking up there that would even consider taking on Gay's contract and fit their needs. But a draft pick in a mediocre draft still gives us young talent, financial flexibility and possibly a better pick next year. We need the first 2 to be able to move forward, the 2014 pick is just icing on the cake.
    I'd rather keep Gay.

    As good as Burke was in college, is he a great NBA PG? Think about how strong that position is first. Are you even that confident that Burke is a better player than Lowry in the NBA? I'm not.

    Then consider next year's 8th pick....ok, so as strong as the draft is, all the hype is always focused at the top. Even in the STRONGEST drafts, the 8th pick can be complete garbage. Just off the top of my head, 2 of the strongest drafts of all time are 1984 and 2003.....

    1-5 of 2003: Bron Bron, Darko, Melo, Bosh, Wade
    6-10 of 2003: Chris Kaman, Kirk Hinrich, TJ Ford, Michael Sweetney, Jarvis Hayes

    1-5 of 1984: Hakeem, Sam Bowie, Jordan, Sam Perkins, Charles Barkley
    6-10 of 1984: Mel Turpin, Alvin Robertson, Lancaster Gordon, Otis Thorpe, Leon Wood.

    There is no player in either of those 6-10 ranges who's as good as Gay. Robertson maybe for a few years in his prime. And maybe Thorpe as well. Maybe.

    So you could end up trading Gay, draft an average-above average starting NBA PG, and then end up drafting a bust or role player with the 8th pick the next year. You have just turned a borderline all-star who will have very good trade value in his last contract year (when you'll be bringing in that prized #8 pick) into 2 more or less average players who don't significantly improve the fortunes of the team, and who will not be as valuable in swinging deals at that time.

    The draft is maybe the best way to add talent, unfortunately it's also a gigantic crapshoot. In any given year, strong or weak, it's pretty lucky if more than 10 guys go on to have solid NBA careers. And usually at least 2 or 3 of those guys are in the top 5 (even if they are relative busts for their draft position and hoped potential....like Okafor for example)

  7. #167
    Raptors Republic Superstar Axel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    2,849
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    I'd rather keep Gay.

    As good as Burke was in college, is he a great NBA PG? Think about how strong that position is first. Are you even that confident that Burke is a better player than Lowry in the NBA? I'm not.

    Then consider next year's 8th pick....ok, so as strong as the draft is, all the hype is always focused at the top. Even in the STRONGEST drafts, the 8th pick can be complete garbage. Just off the top of my head, 2 of the strongest drafts of all time are 1984 and 2003.....

    1-5 of 2003: Bron Bron, Darko, Melo, Bosh, Wade
    6-10 of 2003: Chris Kaman, Kirk Hinrich, TJ Ford, Michael Sweetney, Jarvis Hayes

    1-5 of 1984: Hakeem, Sam Bowie, Jordan, Sam Perkins, Charles Barkley
    6-10 of 1984: Mel Turpin, Alvin Robertson, Lancaster Gordon, Otis Thorpe, Leon Wood.

    There is no player in either of those 6-10 ranges who's as good as Gay. Robertson maybe for a few years in his prime. And maybe Thorpe as well. Maybe.

    So you could end up trading Gay, draft an average-above average starting NBA PG, and then end up drafting a bust or role player with the 8th pick the next year. You have just turned a borderline all-star who will have very good trade value in his last contract year (when you'll be bringing in that prized #8 pick) into 2 more or less average players who don't significantly improve the fortunes of the team, and who will not be as valuable in swinging deals at that time.

    The draft is maybe the best way to add talent, unfortunately it's also a gigantic crapshoot. In any given year, strong or weak, it's pretty lucky if more than 10 guys go on to have solid NBA careers. And usually at least 2 or 3 of those guys are in the top 5 (even if they are relative busts for their draft position and hoped potential....like Okafor for example)
    Ok, so you don't trust Burke (or drafting in general), but what about any of the other possibilities? Our roster is flawed. The new GM has admitted it, and it has been long discussed the plethora of wings we have that can't shoot the 3-ball. Adding a legit 3 point shooter is a must for this team to succeed. If Ross develops into that guy then great, but how is that going to happen when he is stuck playing behind so many guys?

    Personally, I'd love to see the team move Gay for the #4 pick and take Anthony Bennett. From the latest Si mock draft on Bennett, "several NBA executives believe that Bennett has the biggest upside in the draft. "He's ridiculously talented," a Western Conference general manager said. "There's a superstar in him." ...the best player on the board, and that's Bennett. He is an explosive athlete, has a credible back-to-the-basket and face-up game and legitimate three-point range (38.3 percent last season)."

    Draf the Toronto kid with legit 3 point range, superstar potential and perhaps the new prototype 4 (smaller but can shoot from deep) in the Paul Millsap mold. Yes I realize that this doesn't lesson the quantity of wings on the team, but it does change the dynamic if one of them can shoot and play more in the 4 slot.

    Every draft is a crap shoot. If you are too afraid to trust in the scouting department, then you can trade the 2014 pick. The 2014 pick at #8 is likely going to bring in as much trade value as the #4 this year. This is the year to acquire picks because they are cheaper than 2014, but the trend in the NBA is that first rounders are becoming more valuable because of the luxuary tax changes. So if you can get a high pick in any draft, it has to be considered. If you can quickly move the team from a treadmill team at the tax threshold to a team with assets, prospects and financial flexibility then I think that is always the best decision.

    I also find it odd that whenever anyone suggests trading away any players and hoping for a good 2014 pick, it suddens is construed to mean "tank". Even if we make 0 roster changes, we are very likely a lottery team anyway (50-50 at best), so it's not exactly tanking to increase our chances a little.

  8. #168
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    8,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Axel wrote: View Post
    Ok, so you don't trust Burke (or drafting in general), but what about any of the other possibilities? Our roster is flawed. The new GM has admitted it, and it has been long discussed the plethora of wings we have that can't shoot the 3-ball. Adding a legit 3 point shooter is a must for this team to succeed. If Ross develops into that guy then great, but how is that going to happen when he is stuck playing behind so many guys?

    Personally, I'd love to see the team move Gay for the #4 pick and take Anthony Bennett. From the latest Si mock draft on Bennett, "several NBA executives believe that Bennett has the biggest upside in the draft. "He's ridiculously talented," a Western Conference general manager said. "There's a superstar in him." ...the best player on the board, and that's Bennett. He is an explosive athlete, has a credible back-to-the-basket and face-up game and legitimate three-point range (38.3 percent last season)."

    Draf the Toronto kid with legit 3 point range, superstar potential and perhaps the new prototype 4 (smaller but can shoot from deep) in the Paul Millsap mold. Yes I realize that this doesn't lesson the quantity of wings on the team, but it does change the dynamic if one of them can shoot and play more in the 4 slot.

    Every draft is a crap shoot. If you are too afraid to trust in the scouting department, then you can trade the 2014 pick. The 2014 pick at #8 is likely going to bring in as much trade value as the #4 this year. This is the year to acquire picks because they are cheaper than 2014, but the trend in the NBA is that first rounders are becoming more valuable because of the luxuary tax changes. So if you can get a high pick in any draft, it has to be considered. If you can quickly move the team from a treadmill team at the tax threshold to a team with assets, prospects and financial flexibility then I think that is always the best decision.

    I also find it odd that whenever anyone suggests trading away any players and hoping for a good 2014 pick, it suddens is construed to mean "tank". Even if we make 0 roster changes, we are very likely a lottery team anyway (50-50 at best), so it's not exactly tanking to increase our chances a little.
    I agree that our roster is flawed, but not because of a low aggregate level of talent. It is more about how skills mesh and such. So to me, gutting the team is a huge overreaction.

    Players I like in this draft in the top part are Burke, Oladipo, Porter and Bennett. Of those guys, I believe Bennett is the only one with an obviously all-star ceiling. Oladipo has a lot of work to do, and so far his stock has risen largely because people believe he'll be able to meet that workload. None are worth trading away a core piece for, unless it is also a good deal for other reasons (and not just in terms of dumping money, I mean getting a real asset back). Porter I loved as a late-lottery target, but I honestly just see him as a glue guy. Burke as well. He's so hyped up, and he could easily be a starting PG in the NBA...but that could also just be a guy who averages 12 and 6 with decent %s and plays smart. That's not bad...but it's nothing to go shopping desperately for.

    Like you, the only guy I'd seriously consider is Bennett. The guy is a beast on offense, plain and simple. I don't see him having the tweener problem, which is usually because a guy is too slow to play SF, and too weak/short to play PF. Bennett is short, but he's a great athlete who is incredibly powerful physically and very quick on his feet. As crazy as it sounds, I honestly believe he can be the best undersized PF since Barkley, and has a chance to be that good. OF course, he'll have to really focus and dedicate himself to the game, but even Barkley needed that. He consistently praises M. Malone and the other Philly vets for kicking him in the butt as a rookie and teaching him how to be a pro. Bennett will need this. To me, he's the only guy in the top 10 with an obviously high (see all-star) ceiling. But unfortunately, I think the price for Bennett will be too high because I think any team taking him will be very happy with their pick. If he were 6'9 or 6'10, he would've been the consensus #1 pick all year, hands down.

    On the bolds, it's quite the opposite. I have faith in our new scouting department. At least more faith than BC's "draft the most obvious pick or the guy I'm obsessed with for no logical reason" approach. So why the heck would we trade away good players to get higher picks?

    First off, in this draft, with a good scouting department, I am quite confident that they could add a solid player without giving up much of anything. That would be an excellent, low-risk, high-reward move. I truly believe some later guys could end up being huge steals, not because there are always late steals, but because they can actually be better than most guys in the top 10 (to me, Karasev is the perfect example of this).

    Secondly, if the team is already possibly a lottery team again next year, then why make trades? You're getting a lottery pick with a good scouting department.

    If you could add two picks at a lower cost within the next two years, by simply trading away dead weight for a low pick now, and just letting next season play out, you still get two picks. And if you have faith in the scouting department, I'm ok with something like the 27th and 13th picks instead of 4th and 13th, especially if it means not having to give up any real talent. I'd be more inclined to let the scouting department find one of the players outside the top 5 who's going to be good if it means also being able to properly evaluate this core for another season (a core that has barely played together and has some young, growing pieces). If for no other reason that some pieces we have can possibly be used to acquire a legit all-star talent if one becomes available (ie. Rondo, Parker, Love, Wall, etc...). I mean, would you rather trade Rudy Gay for pick(s) and filler, or trade Rudy Gay in some kind of deal for Rondo?

    Put it this way, your approach actually makes me think you have LESS faith in the scouting department. You want to give up proven talent for a higher pick in the hopes of minimizing the risk associated to the pick and hopefully leading to less chance of a mistake.

    I don't see the need to go after high picks and possibly losing solid (even if ill-fitting) pieces. Maybe without doing anything so drastic, our new front office can add two high-calibre picks under the radar over two years, and figure out what works with the current core.

    And btw, if picks in this year's draft are cheaper, why the heck would you want to trade away better players? Why wouldn't you want to take the same approach as I do? Trade spare parts for the inevitable picks that will become available as teams don't want to add too many projects and guaranteed contracts in a bad draft year. No need to trade Gay or DeMar for a top 10 pick. Just see what's available cheap later. It just makes no sense to have a mentality like "picks are worth less this year, lets get as many as possible by giving up valuable assets".

  9. #169
    Raptors Republic Superstar Axel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    2,849
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    I agree that our roster is flawed, but not because of a low aggregate level of talent. It is more about how skills mesh and such. So to me, gutting the team is a huge overreaction.

    Players I like in this draft in the top part are Burke, Oladipo, Porter and Bennett. Of those guys, I believe Bennett is the only one with an obviously all-star ceiling. Oladipo has a lot of work to do, and so far his stock has risen largely because people believe he'll be able to meet that workload. None are worth trading away a core piece for, unless it is also a good deal for other reasons (and not just in terms of dumping money, I mean getting a real asset back). Porter I loved as a late-lottery target, but I honestly just see him as a glue guy. Burke as well. He's so hyped up, and he could easily be a starting PG in the NBA...but that could also just be a guy who averages 12 and 6 with decent %s and plays smart. That's not bad...but it's nothing to go shopping desperately for.

    Like you, the only guy I'd seriously consider is Bennett. The guy is a beast on offense, plain and simple. I don't see him having the tweener problem, which is usually because a guy is too slow to play SF, and too weak/short to play PF. Bennett is short, but he's a great athlete who is incredibly powerful physically and very quick on his feet. As crazy as it sounds, I honestly believe he can be the best undersized PF since Barkley, and has a chance to be that good. OF course, he'll have to really focus and dedicate himself to the game, but even Barkley needed that. He consistently praises M. Malone and the other Philly vets for kicking him in the butt as a rookie and teaching him how to be a pro. Bennett will need this. To me, he's the only guy in the top 10 with an obviously high (see all-star) ceiling. But unfortunately, I think the price for Bennett will be too high because I think any team taking him will be very happy with their pick. If he were 6'9 or 6'10, he would've been the consensus #1 pick all year, hands down.

    First off, in this draft, with a good scouting department, I am quite confident that they could add a solid player without giving up much of anything. That would be an excellent, low-risk, high-reward move. I truly believe some later guys could end up being huge steals, not because there are always late steals, but because they can actually be better than most guys in the top 10 (to me, Karasev is the perfect example of this).

    If you could add two picks at a lower cost within the next two years, by simply trading away dead weight for a low pick now, and just letting next season play out, you still get two picks.

    Put it this way, your approach actually makes me think you have LESS faith in the scouting department. You want to give up proven talent for a higher pick in the hopes of minimizing the risk associated to the pick and hopefully leading to less chance of a mistake.
    I don't think trading any one player can be taken as "gutting" the team.

    Of the 4 players you mention, Oladipo is seeing his draft stock potential drop because he can't shoot the 3. He would be the worst type of player to choose for our team since he would really only be adding to our strengths and none of our weaknesses.

    I don't understand how we can acquire first round picks without giving up something valuable. We don't exactly have a roster full of gems that other teams want, so we have very little in terms of "marketable" assets.

    To me the only players on this team that could bring in a first round pick (in either year) are:
    Gay - high end pick to the right team
    JV - wouldn't want to deal him
    Ross - would bring in a low lottery pick likely
    Derozan - probably the same range as Ross
    Amir - high teens to low 20's is possible if we sold high (aka - now)

    Since trading one of those players, in your eyes, was gutting the team, I can't imagine how you'd feel about the rest. But also, finances are a huge part of the equation. Look at what Houston was a couple of years ago. They were desperately trying to land a marquee player and now they could end up with Harden and Howard. They were able to pull that off by acquiring lots of players on rookie deals and stock piling draft picks. Then they used the flexibility to acquire Harden. We don't need to go to a full out rookie roster like they did, but we definitely need to be in a better place before we approach the cap ceiling.

    I don't think giving up proven talent has anything to do with minimizing risk of drafting wrong. It's about being in the position to draft the best player for the team. Of all the teams in the lottery that would be willing to trade, only 2 are likely to be interested and willing to take on Gay's contract. If he is such a great player, wouldn't you think that more teams would want his services for nothing more than a 'crap-shoot' pick? We need a player who can shoot the 3 from the wing, or an elite PG. If you don't think Burke is that PG and you don't think Bennett is that guy, then you're right, moving into the top 5 for Gay doesn't make sense. But where can you move into? What asset do we have that will get you that guy? Outside of the top picks, the guys with first round grades that would fit that mold are: Karasev, Crabbe, Larkin, Hardaway Jr and Bullock? Those guys are currently in the 20-30 range, but where is just about anyone's guess. Unless you deal DeRozan, then I don't see how you get it done. Trading Amir would likely get you a pick, but then you are weakening a weakness while adding more to the log-jam. If we could somehow trade Fields for a pick in that range, you'd do it, but that isn't going to happen. Moving Demar or Gay are the best options to improve the team's roster, but I don't know if there is a trade fit for Demar in the range that he is worth. Plus trading Demar gives us less of a financial benefit.

  10. #170
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    8,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Axel wrote: View Post
    I don't think trading any one player can be taken as "gutting" the team.

    Of the 4 players you mention, Oladipo is seeing his draft stock potential drop because he can't shoot the 3. He would be the worst type of player to choose for our team since he would really only be adding to our strengths and none of our weaknesses.

    I don't understand how we can acquire first round picks without giving up something valuable. We don't exactly have a roster full of gems that other teams want, so we have very little in terms of "marketable" assets.

    To me the only players on this team that could bring in a first round pick (in either year) are:
    Gay - high end pick to the right team
    JV - wouldn't want to deal him
    Ross - would bring in a low lottery pick likely
    Derozan - probably the same range as Ross
    Amir - high teens to low 20's is possible if we sold high (aka - now)

    Since trading one of those players, in your eyes, was gutting the team, I can't imagine how you'd feel about the rest. But also, finances are a huge part of the equation. Look at what Houston was a couple of years ago. They were desperately trying to land a marquee player and now they could end up with Harden and Howard. They were able to pull that off by acquiring lots of players on rookie deals and stock piling draft picks. Then they used the flexibility to acquire Harden. We don't need to go to a full out rookie roster like they did, but we definitely need to be in a better place before we approach the cap ceiling.

    I don't think giving up proven talent has anything to do with minimizing risk of drafting wrong. It's about being in the position to draft the best player for the team. Of all the teams in the lottery that would be willing to trade, only 2 are likely to be interested and willing to take on Gay's contract. If he is such a great player, wouldn't you think that more teams would want his services for nothing more than a 'crap-shoot' pick? We need a player who can shoot the 3 from the wing, or an elite PG. If you don't think Burke is that PG and you don't think Bennett is that guy, then you're right, moving into the top 5 for Gay doesn't make sense. But where can you move into? What asset do we have that will get you that guy? Outside of the top picks, the guys with first round grades that would fit that mold are: Karasev, Crabbe, Larkin, Hardaway Jr and Bullock? Those guys are currently in the 20-30 range, but where is just about anyone's guess. Unless you deal DeRozan, then I don't see how you get it done. Trading Amir would likely get you a pick, but then you are weakening a weakness while adding more to the log-jam. If we could somehow trade Fields for a pick in that range, you'd do it, but that isn't going to happen. Moving Demar or Gay are the best options to improve the team's roster, but I don't know if there is a trade fit for Demar in the range that he is worth. Plus trading Demar gives us less of a financial benefit.
    Because if you're not gutting the team, it makes even less sense. It's staying on the mediocrity treadmill.....

    Lets trade the guy who is currently very obviously our best player, basically for a draft pick and a chance at a higher one next year. Meanwhile you keep the rest of the team the same....so the team won't actually be much worse, and there's no real way to know how a draft pick influences things, but given this draft, a fair chance you don't get an immediate impact player, or impact player at all.

    If you're going to start things by trading away your best player, you better be going all out for the tank. Otherwise you're just gambling for the sake of gambling.

    Also, your assumptions about our roster value is based entirely other teams only looking to add talent by trading away their picks. So, here are some other assumptions...

    -A playoff team, may want to trade away a pick rather than add several guaranteed rookie deals to their roster. Ex: OKC has several picks. OKC has a burdensome contract in Perkins. OKC desperately needs a big who can score the ball, possibly even Bargs. Bargs for Perk + OKC's 29th or 32nd pick would definitely have to be something both teams at least consider.

    -Or a team that simply doesn't want to add a guaranteed rookie deal may want to deal their pick. Dallas is an obvious example. This could also include a team that would take a veteran for one year in place of a rookie for 2. If Minnesota doesn't want to add 2 rookies this year, and if they will dangle Ridnour in trades, JL3 might be a very appealing, cheap option as a 3rd PG and extra shooter in exchange for their 26th pick. They don't need more youth at PG with Rubio, and Shved as kind of a combo guard. Barea is even in his prime. At 26 there could be several intriguing options, even just as role players, that could upgrade talent now, without sacrificing anybody else's development. A guy like Tony Mitchell maybe. Or one of the Jr. NBAers (Rice/Hardaway). Or maybe an international guy like Karasev or Antetokounmpo will fall because that's not uncommon with young international prospects. Gobert is probably the most likely candidate, and could be the right kind of back up for JV. ..PHX also has two 1st rounders, and maybe 30 will be up for grabs for who knows what?

    -A team that is trying to free up cap space for next summer could also easily dangle their pick, and try to tag a contract with it to free up space next year. It could even be something small. Or it could be big.
    Ex small: Kleiza to Portland for Joel Freeland's useless ass and one of their 2nd rders (preferably 39 or 40). Freeland is not giong to be a better player than any project they take at 10. THey'd also still have 2 more 2nd rders to go. Kabongo may even be available at that part of the draft. I think Kabongo would still be a lottery pick if all the off-court crap hadn't happened. He's as good a PG prospect as anybody in this draft.
    Ex big: Amir Johnson and Gray/Kleiza to Cleveland for Varejao and a pick. They have the 1st, 19th, 31st and 33rd picks. Obviously in this deal, the 1st is off the table, but maybe everything else is on the table depending on the exact configuration. Why would Cleveland do this? If they can't make a big splash in a trade, they can shave a few million off their books starting in the summer 2014, and replace Varejao with a similar quality of big in Amir, and in doing so swap a guy coming off a long layoff for a guy coming off his best season. Amir is also probably not going to command as many minutes as Varejao, so it works well if they are focusing on developing their young bigs and thus giving them more time.

    These are just some random examples. I'm sure there are scenarios I'm not considering where the Raptors could make positive moves where they don't suffer a large loss of immediate talent.

  11. #171
    Raptors Republic Superstar Axel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    2,849
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I disagree that it's staying on the treadmill if it adds a player that compliments the current roster. Gay & Derozan wont work because neither can shoot very well. If you move one of those players for a guy who can shoot the 3, you create a better balanced roster moving forward. It will result in a small step back (which nets a good pick in 2014) but in the long-term (2-3 yrs) improves your roster and adds financial flexbility or at least removes the burden of one of the worst NBA contracts.

    As for your trade scenarios, the OKC one is absurd. If OKC wanted to trade Perkins, they have enough young talented assets (Lamb, PJ3) and picks to tie to him to land a significantly better player than Bargnani. No one in the league will likely trade for Kleiza. Varajao is worth more (to the right team) around the league than Amir, so we are definitely not getting a pick back in that deal. Cleveland would more likely trade him to OKC for Perkins and Lamb than take Amir and filler, plus give up a pick. Perkins would help their defensive woes and Lamb or PJ3 could help their wing rotation.

  12. #172
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    8,588
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Axel wrote: View Post
    I disagree that it's staying on the treadmill if it adds a player that compliments the current roster. Gay & Derozan wont work because neither can shoot very well. If you move one of those players for a guy who can shoot the 3, you create a better balanced roster moving forward. It will result in a small step back (which nets a good pick in 2014) but in the long-term (2-3 yrs) improves your roster and adds financial flexbility or at least removes the burden of one of the worst NBA contracts.

    As for your trade scenarios, the OKC one is absurd. If OKC wanted to trade Perkins, they have enough young talented assets (Lamb, PJ3) and picks to tie to him to land a significantly better player than Bargnani. No one in the league will likely trade for Kleiza. Varajao is worth more (to the right team) around the league than Amir, so we are definitely not getting a pick back in that deal. Cleveland would more likely trade him to OKC for Perkins and Lamb than take Amir and filler, plus give up a pick. Perkins would help their defensive woes and Lamb or PJ3 could help their wing rotation.
    Did you see Perk play this year? His attitude is the only skill he has left. He's a liability on both ends for OKC.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 7 8 9

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •