View Poll Results: Is the never ending debate settled?

Voters
59. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - #tankON

    40 67.80%
  • No - #playoffsAWAIT

    19 32.20%
Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 252

Thread: Debate settled......

  1. #141
    Raptors Republic Starter S.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    lmao, but maybe one should wait until further moves before getting snotty and pounding one's chest. Amazing how some are so stuck on stu............ um stuck on their tank plans that they read stuff into MU's words and action that aren't there.

    In this deal alone, there is absolutely nothing that fits into any scenario I've seen touted here as a tank plan. In general it's been stated dozens, if not hundreds, of times that the whole tank "plan" is:

    1. Unload what talent there is, except JV, for prospects and picks. Neither of which was done with this trade. Neither Salmons or Hayes can possibly be called prospects. Patterson may have been considered one at some point, but if the tankers think DD isn't a prospect worth keeping at barely 24, Patterson at 5 months older is even much less developed. Vasquez, at almost 27 (and older than Amir btw, is Jose-lite with much less of a 3 pt shot.
    Unloading Gray and Acy hardly fits in with unloading talent either.

    2. Get worse over short term to enable getting better long term.
    Hmmmm, MU got rid of the consensus team killer, between his very high TO rate, incredibly bad decision making, and historically bad shooting efficiency, a very good argument can be made that this move makes the better!
    - whether that 1 game with out him is short-lived or not, it would only be guessing by anybody, but we saw more ball movement and more playmaking, and more use of all talents on the floor, than any game this year. That can hardly be seen as getting worse.
    - Vasquez, despite his weaknesses, especially defense, is an instant upgrade on our backup PG spot. He ADDS to the ball movement and set up teammates concept we saw in LA.
    - Hayes, an experienced and very savvy defensive big, is certainly an upgrade over street cloths wearing Acy.

    So, we got rid of a toxic "talent" that was playing very poorly, and got upgrades in two areas. How exactly is that getting worse? (to get better later)

    What this trade is?

    1. unloading a crippling salary, especially with the uncertainty of whether he was what he was going to do with his upcoming option, for a handful of much more moveable contracts, all but one ending at the end of the season. Wise financial management, but that hardly makes it a "tank" move.

    2. unloading a wasted "talent" that was hurting this team's play, and chances to win, in virtually every game, coupled with upgrading at both the PG and bigs depth.

    Save the pompous chest-thumping until there is actually a "tank" trade that actually fits your proposed ideas of tanking.
    You're absolutely right. This was a roster building move and MU's aiming for the playoffs. With a new backup point guard, a first round appearance is definitely in play. If he can just flip pieces like Novak and Hansbrough, or Lowry's expiring for a couple of all-stars, or at least a franchise cornerstone and an all-star, then this team will have serious aspirations moving forward.

    Worst case scenario he'll hit the playoffs this year on the back of Patrick Patterson's phenomenal outside shooting, then use impending cap space to sign a league MVP-type player or two. Drafting just outside of the lottery for the next couple years will also help a lot.

    I like the direction things are going! This is great!

  2. #142
    Raptors Republic Veteran Nilanka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    lmao, but maybe one should wait until further moves before getting snotty and pounding one's chest. Amazing how some are so stuck on stu............ um stuck on their tank plans that they read stuff into MU's words and action that aren't there.

    In this deal alone, there is absolutely nothing that fits into any scenario I've seen touted here as a tank plan. In general it's been stated dozens, if not hundreds, of times that the whole tank "plan" is:

    1. Unload what talent there is, except JV, for prospects and picks. Neither of which was done with this trade. Neither Salmons or Hayes can possibly be called prospects. Patterson may have been considered one at some point, but if the tankers think DD isn't a prospect worth keeping at barely 24, Patterson at 5 months older is even much less developed. Vasquez, at almost 27 (and older than Amir btw, is Jose-lite with much less of a 3 pt shot.
    Unloading Gray and Acy hardly fits in with unloading talent either.

    2. Get worse over short term to enable getting better long term.
    Hmmmm, MU got rid of the consensus team killer, between his very high TO rate, incredibly bad decision making, and historically bad shooting efficiency, a very good argument can be made that this move makes the better!
    - whether that 1 game with out him is short-lived or not, it would only be guessing by anybody, but we saw more ball movement and more playmaking, and more use of all talents on the floor, than any game this year. That can hardly be seen as getting worse.
    - Vasquez, despite his weaknesses, especially defense, is an instant upgrade on our backup PG spot. He ADDS to the ball movement and set up teammates concept we saw in LA.
    - Hayes, an experienced and very savvy defensive big, is certainly an upgrade over street cloths wearing Acy.

    So, we got rid of a toxic "talent" that was playing very poorly, and got upgrades in two areas. How exactly is that getting worse? (to get better later)

    What this trade is?

    1. unloading a crippling salary, especially with the uncertainty of whether he was what he was going to do with his upcoming option, for a handful of much more moveable contracts, all but one ending at the end of the season. Wise financial management, but that hardly makes it a "tank" move.

    2. unloading a wasted "talent" that was hurting this team's play, and chances to win, in virtually every game, coupled with upgrading at both the PG and bigs depth.

    Save the pompous chest-thumping until there is actually a "tank" trade that actually fits your proposed ideas of tanking.
    The writing's on the wall, my friend. The tanking has started. This team is aiming for the lottery.

    All this talk about better ball movement, team has more depth, etc., is all Doug Smith-esque fairy tale material.
    "I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder

  3. #143
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote S.R. wrote: View Post
    You're absolutely right. This was a roster building move and MU's aiming for the playoffs. With a new backup point guard, a first round appearance is definitely in play. If he can just flip pieces like Novak and Hansbrough, or Lowry's expiring for a couple of all-stars, or at least a franchise cornerstone and an all-star, then this team will have serious aspirations moving forward.

    Worst case scenario he'll hit the playoffs this year on the back of Patrick Patterson's phenomenal outside shooting, then use impending cap space to sign a league MVP-type player or two. Drafting just outside of the lottery for the next couple years will also help a lot.

    I like the direction things are going! This is great!
    Great smartass, but I see you have zero argument for what you're responding to. Dumb snark, as smartass as you're trying to be, is still nothing but dumb.

  4. #144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Nilanka wrote: View Post
    The writing's on the wall, my friend. The tanking has started. This team is aiming for the lottery.

    All this talk about better ball movement, team has more depth, etc., is all Doug Smith-esque fairy tale material.
    Well, at least you're not just trying to be smartass. Thank you. However, you're speculation is not responding to my points at all, which is that nothing about this trade fits the oft-touted "tank plan" that S.R. is pounding his chest about, calling out anti-tankers like y'all have somehow been validated by MU's trade, and you snarkely endorsed.

  5. #145
    Raptors Republic All-Star stooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    Well, at least you're not just trying to be smartass. Thank you. However, you're speculation is not responding to my points at all, which is that nothing about this trade fits the oft-touted "tank plan" that S.R. is pounding his chest about, calling out anti-tankers like y'all have somehow been validated by MU's trade, and you snarkely endorsed.
    Well I think giving away Gay is an acceptance of the state of this team. Certainly, no talent was added here, so it hasn't pushed us in either direction.

    Looking at the assets that we possess though, a realistic finish for us is the 8th seed.

    Gay was the one player that people could point to and say, "well if he figures it out the raptors will get a lot better." There's not much upside to this team anymore in the short term.

    MU's quote about not being in no man's land is more telling than anything else.

    Also articles on ESPN and Grantland about the direction of the two franchises.

  6. #146
    Super Moderator Joey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    7,814
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    Well, at least you're not just trying to be smartass. Thank you. However, you're speculation is not responding to my points at all, which is that nothing about this trade fits the oft-touted "tank plan" that S.R. is pounding his chest about, calling out anti-tankers like y'all have somehow been validated by MU's trade, and you snarkely endorsed.
    Masai flat out said during his press conference this move was made with the future in mind, and not made for wins this seson.
    Not direct quote, but he absolutely said as much during his press-conference.

    So while this doesn't reak of "'tank plan" move, it certainly does smell a little bit like a "build properly" move.
    In Masai we Trust.

  7. #147
    Raptors Republic Veteran Nilanka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    Well, at least you're not just trying to be smartass. Thank you. However, you're speculation is not responding to my points at all, which is that nothing about this trade fits the oft-touted "tank plan" that S.R. is pounding his chest about, calling out anti-tankers like y'all have somehow been validated by MU's trade, and you snarkely endorsed.
    I admit the Gay trade (when viewed in a vacuum) could be argued either way (i.e. for or against tanking).

    But when you factor in the following, the scales are heavily tipped in favour of the tanking route....at least in my opinion.

    1. Masai's words of wanting to avoid "no man's land", which can be assumed to equal the state of the Raptors over the past 7 years (i.e. perpetual 8-12 seeds).
    2. The once-in-a-decade draft talent available this summer
    3. The fact that Lieweke wants championships, and winning championships without elite talent is damn near impossible (the 2004 Pistons is noted as a rare exception).

    And what fun would internet arguments be without any chest-thumping? EDIT: Chump!
    Last edited by Nilanka; Tue Dec 10th, 2013 at 02:21 PM.
    "I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder

  8. Like Axel liked this post
  9. #148
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,335
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Nilanka wrote: View Post
    I admit the Gay trade (when viewed in a vacuum) could be argued either way (i.e. for or against tanking).

    But when you factor in the following, the scales are heavily tipped in favour of the tanking route....at least in my opinion.

    1. Masai's words of wanting to avoid "no man's land", which can be assumed to equal the state of the Raptors over the past 7 years (i.e. perpetual 8-12 seeds).
    2. The once-in-a-decade draft talent available this summer
    3. The fact that Lieweke wants championships, and winning championships without elite talent is damn near impossible (the 2004 Pistons is noted as a rare exception).

    And what fun would internet arguments be without any chest-thumping?
    For anybody believing that the tank may not (or is not) be on, I would suggest watching the news conference from yesterday, where it was abundantly clear that MU was focused on the future. Everything he talked about was with regards to the future, with practically no mention of the current season. When mentioning the 4 players acquired in trade, he referred to the future flexibility their contracts provided, without saying anything resembling a positive impact they'd have in the ongoing quest for playoffs this season.

    Prior to this trade and that press conference, I could understand how avoiding no man's land could mean tanking or going all-in for playoffs. However, after the trade and press conference, it's beyond me how anybody could believe that MU is seriously concerned with the playoffs this season. He's worried about the future, starting with cap space and draft positioning for this upcoming offseason.

  10. #149
    Raptors Republic Starter S.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    Great smartass, but I see you have zero argument for what you're responding to. Dumb snark, as smartass as you're trying to be, is still nothing but dumb.
    I'm not about to attempt to convince you of anything. There are posts within this thread, and dozens more besides that directly address all of your points - and you've read most of them. That you're still raising the same "arguments" at this juncture shows you're not interested in "discussion" or adjusting any of your opinions. You're here to gloss over others' points and repeat yourself ad nauseam.

    For example, my "smart ass" point is a satirical take on your own. Satire is one of the most useful and oldest forms of criticism. But you're not really interested in interacting with anybody at any kind of depth - you'd rather stand on the top of the play structure and yell at all the other kids. The irony of you tossing around the "chest thumping" label just shattered the scale.

  11. #150
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote joey_hesketh wrote: View Post
    Masai flat out said during his press conference this move was made with the future in mind, and not made for wins this seson.
    Not direct quote, but he absolutely said as much during his press-conference.

    So while this doesn't reak of "'tank plan" move, it certainly does smell a little bit like a "build properly" move.
    You're absolutely correct. Wise "build properly", which fits perfectly well with what some, if not most, of us "anti-tankers" as we've been labeled, are in full support of. What this move is, and I've detailed how it doesn't fit the tanking scenarios that keep getting pounded on (but nobody is answering), and what MU said, despite what some choose to read/speculate into it, is not tanking. At least, not on it's own. So, why the calling out of people who disagree with "the tank concept".

    Another question: Is the definition of "tank" changing yet again? Us anti-tankers need to know just what the hell it is we're arguing against, and the tankers keep changing it,,,,,,,, if this is being called "proof" of a tank underway.

  12. #151
    Raptors Republic Veteran Nilanka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,038
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    For anybody believing that the tank may not (or is not) be on, I would suggest watching the news conference from yesterday, where it was abundantly clear that MU was focused on the future. Everything he talked about was with regards to the future, with practically no mention of the current season. When mentioning the 4 players acquired in trade, he referred to the future flexibility they provided, without saying anything resembling a positive impact they'd have in the ongoing quest for playoffs this season.

    Prior to this trade and that press conference, I could understand how avoiding no man's land could mean tanking or going all-in for playoffs. However, after the trade and press conference, it's beyond me how anybody could believe that MU is seriously concerned with the playoffs this season. He's worried about the future, starting with cap space and draft positioning for this upcoming offseason.
    Oh, I agree completely. There's no chance in hell Ujiri's pushing for the playoffs this year.
    "I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder

  13. #152
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    You're absolutely correct. Wise "build properly", which fits perfectly well with what some, if not most, of us "anti-tankers" as we've been labeled, are in full support of. What this move is, and I've detailed how it doesn't fit the tanking scenarios that keep getting pounded on (but nobody is answering), and what MU said, despite what some choose to read/speculate into it, is not tanking. At least, not on it's own. So, why the calling out of people who disagree with "the tank concept".

    Another question: Is the definition of "tank" changing yet again? Us anti-tankers need to know just what the hell it is we're arguing against, and the tankers keep changing it,,,,,,,, if this is being called "proof" of a tank underway.
    Is it the tankers who keep moving the target?

    Because I could have swore that you berated plenty of posters over the summer, myself included, for claiming that this was a "34 win team" and that the Raptors were bound to be in the playoffs this year. Now that they've traded Rudy Gay for a pu pu platter of miscellaneous pieces from one of the worst teams in the league... you are claiming that this is what you and the rest of the "anti-tankers" wanted all along?
    Last edited by Fully; Tue Dec 10th, 2013 at 02:42 PM.

  14. Like jimmie liked this post
  15. #153
    Raptors Republic Starter S.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    Is it the tankers who keep moving the target?

    Because I could have swore that you berated plenty of posters over the summer, myself included, for claiming that this was a "34 win team" and that the Raptors were bound to be in the playoffs this year. Now that they've traded Rudy Gay for a pu pu platter of miscellaneous pieces from one of the worst teams in the league... you are claiming that this is what you and the rest of the "anti-tankers" wanted all along.
    There is literally post after post after post on these boards explaining exactly what the "tankers" mean. Pooka's read many of them. I'm not sure why he keeps regurgitating this nonsense that drives the discussion back to square 1 while pretending to be interested in moving the discussion forward.

  16. #154
    Raptors Republic All-Star stooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote S.R. wrote: View Post
    There is literally post after post after post on these boards explaining exactly what the "tankers" mean. Pooka's read many of them. I'm not sure why he keeps regurgitating this nonsense that drives the discussion back to square 1 while pretending to be interested in moving the discussion forward.
    Well, his point was reasonable: that this was not a tanking move.

    I think it is more of an indication of the moves that will be forthcoming.

    MU's talk was more tank heavy than this trade.

  17. #155
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote S.R. wrote: View Post
    I'm not about to attempt to convince you of anything. There are posts within this thread, and dozens more besides that directly address all of your points - and you've read most of them. That you're still raising the same "arguments" at this juncture shows you're not interested in "discussion" or adjusting any of your opinions. You're here to gloss over others' points and repeat yourself ad nauseam.

    For example, my "smart ass" point is a satirical take on your own. Satire is one of the most useful and oldest forms of criticism. But you're not really interested in interacting with anybody at any kind of depth - you'd rather stand on the top of the play structure and yell at all the other kids. The irony of you tossing around the "chest thumping" label just shattered the scale.
    Bold 1: Always a good thing to know you're limitations.

    Bold 2: No point I made in that post is anything I've said before, but if such bs makes you feel better, good boy.

    Bold 3: kid, you want to play a smartass game, and think you're wearing big boy pants? I'm game. I can be a major asshole, just as well or better than you can.

  18. #156
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,150
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote stooley wrote: View Post
    Well, his point was reasonable: that this was not a tanking move.

    I think it is more of an indication of the moves that will be forthcoming.

    MU's talk was more tank heavy than this trade.
    I'll reiterate again that I think people are greatly overestimating what we will get from the Sactown guys. Hayes is on his last legs. Salmons is not far behind. Patterson is mildly intriguing but has been a below average NBA player for his entire career and Vasquez projects as a career back up if put on the proper team. We got three below average players and one decent player from a 5-13 team.

  19. Like Nilanka liked this post
  20. #157
    Raptors Republic Superstar Axel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    2,733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    Bold 3: kid, you want to play a smartass game, and think you're wearing big boy pants? I'm game. I can be a major asshole, just as well or better than you can.
    Nobody doubts you

  21. Like p00ka, Fully, S.R. liked this post
  22. #158
    Raptors Republic All-Star stooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,986
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    I'll reiterate again that I think people are greatly overestimating what we will get from the Sactown guys. Hayes is on his last legs. Salmons is not far behind. Patterson is mildly intriguing but has been a below average NBA player for his entire career and Vasquez projects as a career back up if put on the proper team. We got three below average players and one decent player from a 5-13 team.
    Gay really wasn't a positive wins guy in my opinion though. Obviously I don't expect Amir to beast-mode every game, but he got 71 touches on Sunday as oppposed to his average of 40. I think redistributing Gay's touches will improve our offence. On defense, Landry should be able to take over Gay's role and compensate with better effort.

  23. #159
    Raptors Republic Starter S.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    Bold 1: Always a good thing to know you're limitations.

    Bold 2: No point I made in that post is anything I've said before, but if such bs makes you feel better, good boy.

    Bold 3: kid, you want to play a smartass game, and think you're wearing big boy pants? I'm game. I can be a major asshole, just as well or better than you can.
    I was about to write a new reply, before realizing the post you quoted is the perfect response for everything you've just written. It's almost like you're trying to show everybody just how right I am. I want you to know I appreciate that.

  24. #160
    Raptors Republic All-Star Mediumcore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,200
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote p00ka wrote: View Post
    lmao, but maybe one should wait until further moves before getting snotty and pounding one's chest. Amazing how some are so stuck on stu............ um stuck on their tank plans that they read stuff into MU's words and action that aren't there.

    In this deal alone, there is absolutely nothing that fits into any scenario I've seen touted here as a tank plan. In general it's been stated dozens, if not hundreds, of times that the whole tank "plan" is:

    1. Unload what talent there is, except JV, for prospects and picks. Neither of which was done with this trade. Neither Salmons or Hayes can possibly be called prospects. Patterson may have been considered one at some point, but if the tankers think DD isn't a prospect worth keeping at barely 24, Patterson at 5 months older is even much less developed. Vasquez, at almost 27 (and older than Amir btw, is Jose-lite with much less of a 3 pt shot.
    Unloading Gray and Acy hardly fits in with unloading talent either.

    2. Get worse over short term to enable getting better long term.
    Hmmmm, MU got rid of the consensus team killer, between his very high TO rate, incredibly bad decision making, and historically bad shooting efficiency, a very good argument can be made that this move makes the better!
    - whether that 1 game with out him is short-lived or not, it would only be guessing by anybody, but we saw more ball movement and more playmaking, and more use of all talents on the floor, than any game this year. That can hardly be seen as getting worse.
    - Vasquez, despite his weaknesses, especially defense, is an instant upgrade on our backup PG spot. He ADDS to the ball movement and set up teammates concept we saw in LA.
    - Hayes, an experienced and very savvy defensive big, is certainly an upgrade over street cloths wearing Acy.

    So, we got rid of a toxic "talent" that was playing very poorly, and got upgrades in two areas. How exactly is that getting worse? (to get better later)

    What this trade is?

    1. unloading a crippling salary, especially with the uncertainty of whether he was what he was going to do with his upcoming option, for a handful of much more moveable contracts, all but one ending at the end of the season. Wise financial management, but that hardly makes it a "tank" move.

    2. unloading a wasted "talent" that was hurting this team's play, and chances to win, in virtually every game, coupled with upgrading at both the PG and bigs depth.

    Save the pompous chest-thumping until there is actually a "tank" trade that actually fits your proposed ideas of tanking.
    I agree with your last points about what the trade was. I don't really see a tank move as yet. What I see by this trade are:
    - Depth at PG. The play of the back up guards was hurting the team when Lowry was out and at the rate he was going he would be injured sooner than later
    - Freeing up minutes and shots for JV and Ross
    - No drop off at SF considering how poorly Gay was playing
    - Additional rebounders and interior D
    - Flexibility

    Another thing I found interesting is that by getting someone like Salmons, whom can handle the rock and Patterson that can shoot, it takes a lot of the pressure off DeMar. Almost like they were shaping the roster around DeMar. Will need time to tell if that theory has any validity to it.

Page 8 of 13 FirstFirst ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast

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
  •