I voted Bargs negative legacy has had a bigger impact than Vinces positive legacy. And I believe this to be true.
What did Vince leave behind?
1. Admittedly created a buzz while he was here and drew attention from US media. But through his whole tenancy, hockey continued to lead the news every night. And the buzz disappeared as soon as he left. A legacy is supposed to live on after you, not end 30 minutes after you leave. So no positive legacy impact just from being here. And anyone that says basketball would have died if he hadn't come along hasn't paid attention to the dollars for this franchise since 1995, when it started. Virtually always been in the top half of money making franchises in the NBA.
2. Lifted the team while here. Vince was capable of hoisting the raps on his back periodically, and sometimes did so. They were a winning franchise during his stay. On the other hand his leaving (and the way he drove down his own trade value by publicly demanding a trade and taking games off) created a much worse franchise. So no positive lasting legacy from his play.
3. I'll give you the excitement among young aspiring basketball players and admit that Vince may have been a major part of todays surge of good Canadian basketball talent. On the other hand, just having a team in Canada did have and continues to have an ongoing positive legacy. The Canadian men's basketball team finished 7th in the 2000 Olympics and hasn't qualified to play since. Vince left 9 years ago, so any 20 year old Canadian ball players were 11 then. Not sure how may of the current crop were so excited between the ages of 7 and 11 that they decided to devote themselves sufficiently to basketball so as to become elite talents, and how much of that was simply due to the growth of the basketball infrastructure in Canada because of the Raptors inception in 1995, four years before he arrived. So I will give some credit to Vince, but by no means all. The growth in better high school coaching and in local rep teams etc. started before he came on the scene.
Bargnani's lasting Negative legacy.
1. Bargs was chosen first overall in a weak draft. No need to go down the list of ultimately better players to come out of that draft. Bargs has been a net negative player in pretty much every year he has played on the team. Players not chosen by the Raps that year have been net positives. So we can safety say tha the has already had 7 years of negative effect on the Raps. I believe that trumps all potential positives vince may have had.
2. Having Bargs in house induced BC to try and build a team around AB, making ill-advised trades and free agent acquisitions hoping to some how patch together a Bosh/AB dynamo. Net effect was years of no financial flexibility (still living with it) and missed draft chances (draft picks traded away as BC tried to build around Bargs - not Bargs fault, but there you go, it is what happened).
3. Bargs showed illusive flashes of potential far more than any other player I have seen in half a lifetime of watching NBA ball, and even after Bosh was gone induced the trading away of picks, and flyers on old, declining free agents.
Bargs net negative will impact the Raps for at least the next two years, while he is gone. If MLSE hadn't dumped BC it is hard to say how much longer it would have gone...BC may have had to take on some horrendous contract to get AB out of the house.
Carter's positive impact ended before he even left the team, and the Raps suffered through a complete breakdown for the two years after he was gone. So which legacy will have lasted longer?
Vinces positive one? Or AB's negative one? I already told you my vote.