View Poll Results: What deal would you have preferred - Detroit or Sacramento?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sacramento

    20 83.33%
  • Detroit

    4 16.67%
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Post-Rudy Trade Reflection: Sacramento or Detroit?

  1. #1
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,633
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Post-Rudy Trade Reflection: Sacramento or Detroit?

    **Disclaimer: Rumours are just that but given how loud the Detroit rumour in July was, I'm going to assume it is legit**



    Sacramento trade: Salmons, Patterson, Vasquez, and Hayes

    OR

    Detroit reported trade: Villaneuva, Stuckey



    Which would you have preferred and, more importantly, why?
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  2. #2
    Raptors Republic All-Star stooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,980
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Sac town because they gave us a bench, and the pistons offered us nothing

  3. #3
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Sacramento.

    Vasquez and Patterson are both decent young players, who are on expiring deals with roughly MLE-level QO. As both players and trade chips, they are both better than anything Detroit was offering.

    Salmons is a good veteran presence this season, while his $1M guarantee for next season (on a $7M contract) makes him a very valuable trade chip (potentially at the 2014 draft).

    Hayes' salary definitely hurt the overall value of the trade a bit, by reducing the total cap savings by $6M next season. However, he could be a decent veteran mentor for Valanciunas, and his expiring contract next season could prove to be worthwhile.

    In terms of players (for this season and beyond), trade chips (for subsequent trades) and cap savings, I prefer the Sacramento trade. Also, if the addition of Gay (ie: black hole) and removal of so much depth hurts Sacramento this season, that benefits the Raptors in the long-run, since Toronto owns Sacramento's 2014 2nd round pick (has great value in the 31-36 range, essentially as a late 1st round pick without the guaranteed money attached to it).

  4. #4
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    66
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Full agreement with the above responses. Sacramento gave us a bench, or as Greivis Vasquez touted it, "the heart of Sacramento." The Detroit deal was nothing more than a tank dump or some form of salary-swallowing penance for the bad deal that was made to acquire Gay last year. Contracts completely aside, this was a deal that got the Raptors a great deal more pieces to choose from on a nightly in-game basis and some players that have value whether on the court, on the trade market or both.

  5. #5
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,633
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I'm going to go with Detroit (but I could really make a case for either).

    There would have been $7M more in cap space (Hayes + $1M guarantee)

    Salmons is a nice trade chip but if the receiving team is going to waive him, they'd save $1M if Toronto just had the cap space to absorb the contract outright.

    My guess is the Raptor pick would be sitting closer to 5 than tied for 18th.

    If there was interest in Vasquez or Patterson, they'd have an opportunity in free agency. If the contract required to get them was too rich then Raps better off not having them to begin with (see Fields, Landry).
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  6. #6
    Raptors Republic All-Star JawsGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,315
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Well, depends on what you want out of the trade I guess. In your case Matt, the DET scenario aids in tanking and/or rebuilding more, so that option is clearly favored by yourself. But if you want to compete for games instead of ping pong balls, like me, than the SAC trade is clearly the better, at least from hindsight. At the time, I wouldn't have been able to predict which trade would have made the team better.

  7. Like Mack North, Letter N liked this post
  8. #7
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,326
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote JawsGT wrote: View Post
    Well, depends on what you want out of the trade I guess. In your case Matt, the DET scenario aids in tanking and/or rebuilding more, so that option is clearly favored by yourself. But if you want to compete for games instead of ping pong balls, like me, than the SAC trade is clearly the better, at least from hindsight. At the time, I wouldn't have been able to predict which trade would have made the team better.
    I actually felt the Sacramento deal was going to result in a tank, almost as effectively as the rumored Detroit deal. The difference for me was that the Sacramento deal was also returning decent prospects (Vasquez & Patterson), who could be kept as players or used as trade bait (along with Salmons' contract).

    Obviously, in hindsight, the Detroit trade would have likely been the better trade for tanking, as far as the Raptors' own 2014 1st round pick is concerned.

    However, this comparison can't properly be completed until we see what becomes of the players acquired from Sacramento. If they prove valuable to completing subsequent deals, that will have to be factored into the comparison.

    We'll never be able to compare the net impact of the two trades, since we'll have no way of knowing what MU would have done with the cap space cleared via the Detroit deal.

  9. #8
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Pistons... Those are expirings. I like Hayes but 6 mil next year is painful. 1 mil to Salmons. That 7 mil of cap space would be nice to have this summer.
    And Stuckey is a very nice 6th man.

  10. #9
    Raptors Republic All-Star JawsGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,315
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    I actually felt the Sacramento deal was going to result in a tank, almost as effectively as the rumored Detroit deal. The difference for me was that the Sacramento deal was also returning decent prospects (Vasquez & Patterson), who could be kept as players or used as trade bait (along with Salmons' contract).

    Obviously, in hindsight, the Detroit trade would have likely been the better trade for tanking, as far as the Raptors' own 2014 1st round pick is concerned.

    However, this comparison can't properly be completed until we see what becomes of the players acquired from Sacramento. If they prove valuable to completing subsequent deals, that will have to be factored into the comparison.

    We'll never be able to compare the net impact of the two trades, since we'll have no way of knowing what MU would have done with the cap space cleared via the Detroit deal.
    Very true, and like I said, I wouldn't have predicted at the time that all the SAC guys would be contributing to winning games like they have. Who knows, Stuckey and CV may have had a similar effect. And like you said, we have to see what becomes of the SAC-Raps in the future to better evaluate the trade.

  11. #10
    Raptors Republic All-Star JawsGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,315
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    In any event, the best thing about the trade is certainly that Gay isn't here anymore.

  12. #11
    Raptors Republic Superstar planetmars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I love hindsight.. at the time I laughed off the Pistons' offer. Now I regret MU for not taking it. Patterson is a nice player and glad we have him, but I would have preferred a proper tank. I just don't see the winning streak they had with a crap bench. MU could have even pulled the trigger sooner on a Lowry or DD trade if they started off poorly and continued poorly into Christmas.

  13. Like akashsingh, CalgaryRapsFan liked this post
  14. #12
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,119
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    I'm going to go with Detroit (but I could really make a case for either).

    There would have been $7M more in cap space (Hayes + $1M guarantee)

    Salmons is a nice trade chip but if the receiving team is going to waive him, they'd save $1M if Toronto just had the cap space to absorb the contract outright.

    My guess is the Raptor pick would be sitting closer to 5 than tied for 18th.

    If there was interest in Vasquez or Patterson, they'd have an opportunity in free agency. If the contract required to get them was too rich then Raps better off not having them to begin with (see Fields, Landry).
    I agree.

    I said many times that I thought the Detroit trade was relatively valuable to Toronto.

    That said, the players from Sacramento have played excellent ball off the bench... but I don't think those wins they've been helping to create will be worth alot to Toronto in the long run.

    Real Value/Short term - Sacramento
    Relative Value/Long Term - Detroit

  15. Like mcHAPPY liked this post
  16. #13
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    1,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's hard to say what would've happened. Stuckey is a much better backup wing than Salmons. No Patterson, but I'd say a backup wing is a bigger need. Jonas/Amir/Hansbrough and a very good backup wing vs. Jonas/Amir/Hansbrough/Patterson/Hayes and Salmons as the best backup wing? I don't think it's so clear which rotation wins more games.

    But most importantly, there would be no Gay from day 1. Chances are the Raptors wouldn't be 6-12 in those games. Addition by subtraction from the start of the season.

    So I have my doubts that the Detroit trade would've meant a tank. Either way, it would've been a better trade because of cap space considerations.

  17. #14
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I don't like Stuckey and Charlie V was annoying enough to watch the first time around.

    Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk

  18. Like S.R. liked this post
  19. #15
    Raptors Republic Starter S.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    I don't like Stuckey and Charlie V was annoying enough to watch the first time around.

    Sent from my Note 3 using Tapatalk
    I wouldn't watch this year if Stuckey and Charlie "48" Villanueva were in the rotation. They'd make us pine for the days of Alan "I Got This" Anderson.

  20. Like OldSkoolCool liked this post
  21. #16
    Raptors Republic Rookie dzoni71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Sacramento trade: Salmons, Patterson, Vasquez, and Hayes

    OR

    Detroit reported trade: Villaneuva, Stuckey



    Which would you have preferred and, more importantly, why?
    I usually love your posts even if I don't always agree, but WTF!? Is this a serious question or some kind of joke I do not get?

  22. #17
    Raptors Republic Veteran Nilanka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    6,027
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    What if we throw in the Boozer rumour from last year?

    The man's averaging 15 and 8, is that low-post threat we've been missing since Bosh, and he's a large expiring contract next year.
    "I don't lie. I willfully participate in a campaign of misinformation." - Fox Mulder

  23. #18
    Raptors Republic All-Star OldSkoolCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Nilanka wrote: View Post
    What if we throw in the Boozer rumour from last year?

    The man's averaging 15 and 8, is that low-post threat we've been missing since Bosh, and he's a large expiring contract next year.
    I've been thinking about this...they also may have a pick we can grab. Any Boozer move is going to be a cap space move for them.

    Lowry+Salmons+Hansborough for Boozer+one of their 3 1st rounders?? Probably the worst one, but I would be fine with that

  24. #19
    Raptors Republic Hall of Famer mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    19,633
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote dzoni71 wrote: View Post
    I usually love your posts even if I don't always agree, but WTF!? Is this a serious question or some kind of joke I do not get?
    Serious - yes.
    Joke - no.

    A number of events this past week have me worried:

    1) I firmly believe Lowry is the engine driving this machine. If he is traded the Raptors are effed.
    2) DeRozan's injury.
    3) Brooklyn's revival.
    4) Atlanta and Chicago are not disappearing.
    5) 7/8 seed looks like a real threat or possibility.
    6) A number of well debated debates on the forums (historically bad EC, injuries, amount of teams with $$$, teams already well in to rebuilding - to name a few).


    There are 11 games until trade deadline. If Lowry goes and if Raptors stumble the last 30 games and end up missing the playoffs, what a bloody waste of a year, in my opinion.

    I don't think there is any question the Sacramento trade made the Raptors better this year. However I am not looking at this year in the big picture.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

    Basketball has clear winners every night --
    except at the draft, which is all homework, politics and chance.

  25. Like Shredder, CalgaryRapsFan liked this post
  26. #20
    Raptors Republic Starter S.R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    784
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Serious - yes.
    Joke - no.

    A number of events this past week have me worried:

    1) I firmly believe Lowry is the engine driving this machine. If he is traded the Raptors are effed.
    2) DeRozan's injury.
    3) Brooklyn's revival.
    4) Atlanta and Chicago are not disappearing.
    5) 7/8 seed looks like a real threat or possibility.
    6) A number of well debated debates on the forums (historically bad EC, injuries, amount of teams with $$$, teams already well in to rebuilding - to name a few).


    There are 11 games until trade deadline. If Lowry goes and if Raptors stumble the last 30 games and end up missing the playoffs, what a bloody waste of a year, in my opinion.

    I don't think there is any question the Sacramento trade made the Raptors better this year. However I am not looking at this year in the big picture.
    Wow, I didn't realize we were this close to crunch time.

    It's time for onions baby, onions!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •