I don't expect them to win many games, because I don't think the roster or head coach are very good. The team isn't very talented, the players don't really fit very well together, there's too much selfish play, and the team is well beyond the salary cap.
I am not upset if they lose, because I believe every loss is additional evidence to help MU make a decision to rebuild/retool this team, which I believe is in the team's long-term best interest. TL has already overhauled the team's management behind the scenes, including bringing in the reigning executive of the year, so it's only natural that the next phase is overhauling the on-court product (players and head coach).
I believe I am objective about this team, despite a deep passion that I have had for this team since day 1. I will never root against this team (Toronto Raptors), but I have no problem being critical about some of the players employed by this franchise. The logo on the front of the jersey is what matters, not the names on the back of them (I think you're blurring the line of distinction between the two).
I want to see my beloved Raptors become a perennial playoff team, with legitimate aspirations for bringing an NBA championship north of the border in my lifetime. I do not believe that a core of overpaid, selfish, flawed players (ie: Gay, DeRozan & Lowry) will ever come close to this goal, so I have no problem watching MU cash-in his chips (trade assets) as part of calculated, methodical, comprehensive plan to rebuild this team's roster more efficiently and effectively, in order to bring about a new era of sustainable winning.
Yes, I suppose I do support "tanking". However, please don't ever question my "fan-ness", simply because I share a different opinion of the current team and what the best strategy for improving it is.
Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Mon Nov 11th, 2013 at 12:46 PM.
Also, I'm a basketball fan before a Raptors fan. There are multiple players on this team who do not play the game the way I like to see it played. I would want to see them gone regardless of whether that gave us a chance at Wiggins, or another blue-chipper.
I have come across pessimistic points of view on the forum. I mean people who have a pessimistic under tone no matter what they say. However not everybody is being pessimistic when they condone tanking. Considering the rich talent in the upcoming draft, tanking IMO is the most realistic and sensible thing to do. If we don't, we'll see regretful posts a few years down the road about how a superstar of another team could have been ours if we had chosen to tank.
Attitude Is A Choice.
Sorry about the whole ''real fan'' thing. I didn't use the good way to express my thoughts. And thanks y'all for your very good answers.
without getting into namecalling as i'm wont to do on this subject....
my big issue with tanking is the philosophy behind it.
I don't personally want to believe a team I support would wantingly attempt to improve be devaluing themselves.
improvement is a forward progression. tanking is regression.
it'd be like always having rub one out minutes before throwing your girlfriend the d.. just to make the sex better instead of actually trying to improve long term... instead of consistently trying to improve your own performance, you're willing to take a personal shame hit just to reach your happy place even if you have to take a ride on the second round softie express to get there..
to each their own... everybody is going to have their opinion on the topic, and i'm not about to get on my high horse about it as I have in the past..
I personally can't fathom wanting a team I support to regress in order to improve. "addition by subtraction" is just a catch phrase... it's actually really fucking illogical.
As you said to each their own. Personally I can't fathom just hoping for a playoff team in 3-4 years. Teams today are rarely going to trade a pick without protections. Trades such as the Lakers landing Magic and Worthy or the Cavs landing Irving are rarer than finding a superstar in the daft.
Turning to Rudy Gay: does he actively make the team worse? There is a reasonable argument that the answer to that is yes. Rudy's a good player in isolation, but he isn't really a player who makes his teammates better: he's a scorer who covers his own position, plain and simple. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but if Rudy isn't making the team better you need players who do - and Rudy's ginormous contract makes getting those players much, much more difficult. Which means there is a reasonable argument that the totality of Rudy Gay is that he makes it harder for the Raptors to compete, and the Raps need to move him as soon as possible. Is Detroit's offer of $20M worth of expirings worth Rudy Gay? We all said no three months ago when Detroit offered it and Masai agreed; clearly Masai thinks Rudy is worth at least one positive asset rather than simply resorting to a scrapyard sale and getting nothing in return. This falls in line with Masai's general operating theory of "always come out ahead on a deal."
But what is that positive asset going to be? Is it a future draft pick? A young player who needs burn to develop and who will be - at least initially - problematic on the floor? Because if that's what you're getting back for Rudy then in the short term the team will appear "worse" (because you're losing Rudy's scoring, generally decent defense, and clutch shooting) and you will talk about regression. But if that asset is better in the long term, then it's not regression at all. It's just recognizing that, if X is Rudy Gay and Y is the assets you can get for Rudy Gay, if Y < X this year but next year and thereafter Y > X, then you probably make that deal because it's a better return.
2. Teams and coaches improve through the season as they learn to play with one another, but this applies to other teams too! Not just us!
(yeesh, I predicted that people would start getting unrealistic expectations based on the Utah game, I just didn't think it would happen this fast)
Agree with the poster, and one of Ujiri's best quotes is, "You can't teach winning by losing." Whether you like him or not, you have to see the value in this attitude. The Raptors have tried (post-Bosh) winning by losing and you see what the end result is -- A middle of the pack team or worse. Other recent examples include the Kings, Bobcats, Clippers of the 80s, 90s, 2000s; Bulls post-MJ (until Rose they failed with Chandler, Curry, Brand, Hinrich other high lotto picks)
I just keep looking at the Pacers and how they were built -- they continued to compete through the lean years (post-Reggie, JO etc), and then proceeded to draft, sign and trade their way to the team they have today. The Pacers are a similar market to Toronto but do not have a top-10 draft pick on their team. They haven't gone to the finals either, but appear to have the makings of a sustainable winning team.
Basically, drafting well is the biggest key -- the best teams seem to always draft well, no matter where they pick. The best teams (the teams that have seemed to be able to sustain winning cultures) build a culture out of competing no matter what their payroll or skill level is. It might not be as easy or as quick as tanking, but it is still the prevailing system to build a sustainable winner. This type of management takes skill...something the Raptors have in their front office.
A number one overall pick is great, but there is a lot of luck involved. Would you rather leave it up to luck or skill?
Last edited by IROR; Mon Nov 11th, 2013 at 03:08 PM. Reason: fixed italics
If Bargnani did in fact make the team worse when he was here, I would argue that keeping him on the team was in fact a form of subtraction. His presence was inherently a deficit. The removal of a deficit isn't subtraction. The act of moving him, in itself, was addition.
but that's a semantics thing... and will get quite silly if we keep the debate up.... if I haven't made it silly already
Regarding those teams, bad bad bad management except the Bulls who just made bad choices and had bad luck with Jay Williams.
Kings, Bobcats, and Clippers are the worse of the worst when it came to drafting, trading, and free agency. If you think Ujiri is totally incompetent then this is a concern. But even the Clippers showed a little luck can right even a totally lost ship.
Last edited by IROR; Mon Nov 11th, 2013 at 03:18 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)