Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 140

Thread: Why "selling high" on DeMar doesn't make sense

  1. #61
    Raptors Republic All-Star Letter N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote .40 Cal Flakes wrote: View Post
    Game 5 on home turf, potential to take the series lead and here we are talking about the pros and cons of trading our All Star player. smfh

    Oh and for the record if you are one the pro trade DeMar guys, well feel free to join another forum:

    http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=23

    *Point being now is not the time for that talk

    #WeTheNorth
    You heard the man, shut it down, shut it all down. We need to get back to serious work like talking about how we need to pass more to Val in game 5 and how much we hate Paul Pierce's stupid cat face. We're on the clock people, and we're undermanned so I'm going to need 200% posting from everyone if we're to make quota.

  2. #62
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote DanH wrote: View Post
    Yes, and he's playing straight into their schemes, taking the tough shots, forcing his play, trying to dribble out of traps, instead of being a good teammate and passing the ball - unlike all season where he made such strides. Sad to see him go away from the improvements he made when it really matters.
    But a lot of that is on Dwane Casey, too. Casey runs a perimeter initiated offense and only trusts Lowry, DD, GV or Salmons with the ball. Consequently, the Nets are overplaying and trapping both of those guys. It's so easy to defend, especially since they are barely defending Ross and Lowry isnít that great at PnR (we got spoiled by Jose). Casey has basically lost trust in Ross (heís sitting in the corner, doing nothing) and JV (he turned the ball over a few times in games 1 & 2). Amir canít handle the ball, so that leaves DD & Lowry getting the ball back late in clock and having to create something out of nothing. This problem replicates itself even worse on the second unit, when it's GV or Salmons chucking it up, but surprisingly, to his credit, Greivis has been outstanding. The offense is so reminiscent of how we started the season with Rudy Gay and I don't blame DD for this, I blame Casey for trying to play safe and not trusting other players.

  3. #63
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,655
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote .40 Cal Flakes wrote: View Post
    Game 5 on home turf, potential to take the series lead and here we are talking about the pros and cons of trading our All Star player. smfh

    Oh and for the record if you are one the pro trade DeMar guys, well feel free to join another forum:

    http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=23

    *Point being now is not the time for that talk

    #WeTheNorth


    Really?

    So you are telling people what to and what not to discuss?


    How about this?

    If you don't like the conversation, don't read it?


    Yeah, that works too.

    And it should be noted one of the forums biggest DD fans started the thread.... not the H8Trs! whut! whut!
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

  4. Like OldSkoolCool, FoxMachine liked this post
  5. #64
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Not sure how he can be ranked third, he takes the most FGA per game of any shooting guard with one of the lowest FG%, no handles and generally slacks off on D. His only real strength is getting to the free throw line and having a top points per game stat because of his high usage. That and great character and work ethic.

    His style of play can work during the regular season, but I just don't see us ever having much success ( beyond the first round) in the playoffs if he's jacking up 25 shots a game below 40%. Especially when his 3pt % is even worse.

    But I agree with the initial post insofar as would I trade him for a draft pick past #5? probably not. I would definitely look at selling high though this off season, but don't consider a pick outside of 1-5 high enough.

  6. #65
    Super Moderator CalgaryRapsFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,610
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote .40 Cal Flakes wrote: View Post
    Game 5 on home turf, potential to take the series lead and here we are talking about the pros and cons of trading our All Star player. smfh

    Oh and for the record if you are one the pro trade DeMar guys, well feel free to join another forum:

    http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewforum.php?f=23

    *Point being now is not the time for that talk

    #WeTheNorth
    #F*ck3dayPlayoffLayoff

    The irony is that the thread was started by a pro-DeRozan poster. You can't blame the mob when pitchforks are being handed out for free! lol

  7. Like FoxMachine, .40 Cal Flakes, mcHAPPY liked this post
  8. #66
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,655
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote RYE wrote: View Post
    What does making decisions with your heart have to do with it? Looking at who he is, and his numbers, I think there are only 2 guys in the draft who MIGHT be capable of matching what Demar has done: Wiggins and Parker. The fact remains that Demar HAS matched what Demar has done. PS...I am cold and callous and calculated
    Enjoy that opinion.

    I think it is delusional to think that is the case.

    Not because I think you're wrong but because you're talking about 18-20 year olds. Who knows where they will be in 5 years with the talent they possess.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

  9. #67
    Super Moderator .40 Cal Flakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    T Dot
    Posts
    1,385
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Letter N wrote: View Post
    You heard the man, shut it down, shut it all down. We need to get back to serious work like talking about how we need to pass more to Val in game 5 and how much we hate Paul Pierce's stupid cat face. We're on the clock people, and we're undermanned so I'm going to need 200% posting from everyone if we're to make quota.

    See you get it. These are the important topics. Paul Pierce's stupid cat face.

  10. Like stooley, Letter N liked this post
  11. #68
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,655
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote JawsGT wrote: View Post
    lol, it will never stop until he is traded.
    Or develops an at least average 3 point shot and defense while taking less much less than 43% of his shots from the dreaded 16 to <3 point shot.

    43% of his shots in the playoffs are really long 2s! Ugh!
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

  12. Like FoxMachine liked this post
  13. #69
    Super Moderator .40 Cal Flakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    T Dot
    Posts
    1,385
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
    Really?

    So you are telling people what to and what not to discuss?


    How about this?

    If you don't like the conversation, don't read it?


    Yeah, that works too.

    And it should be noted one of the forums biggest DD fans started the thread.... not the H8Trs! whut! whut!

    It's all in jest dude. Oh and being a mod it's my solemn duty to peruse any and all threads. You should remember that no?

  14. #70
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,655
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote .40 Cal Flakes wrote: View Post
    It's all in jest dude. Oh and being a mod it's my solemn duty to peruse any and all threads. You should remember that no?
    I do recall and good point.

    However I don't recall ever using my powers of moderating to tell people not to discuss because I wasn't a fan of the discussion.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

  15. #71
    Raptors Republic All-Star JawsGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
    Or develops an at least average 3 point shot and defense while taking less much less than 43% of his shots from the dreaded 16 to <3 point shot.

    43% of his shots in the playoffs are really long 2s! Ugh!
    ahh yes, or when he turns into a superstar...

  16. #72
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    21
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
    Why do you place such a high-value on all-star game appearances?

    I personally find that come all-star time, too much emphasis is placed on basic stats (ie: PPG) and popularity.

    The crux of the ongoing DeRozan debate has never been about his abilities, character, work ethic, etc... but rather about his style of game (ie: one-dimensional scorer, inefficient scorer, etc...). I think a lot of those questions still exist, regardless of how many all-star appearances he makes.

    Even just looking at the 4 playoffs games thus far, DeRozan is shooting 36% from the field and 18% from 3pt range, while playing horrendous defense for the most part and contributing very little in the way of peripheral stats. Basically, his game has regressed to exactly what people have complained about for years, to the point where he's had stretches of being Rudy 'black hole' Gay bad. If not for the appearances at the charity stripe (for all the reffing conspiracy theorists out there, I've been happy with the number of 'bailout' calls DeRozan has been getting), his stat line would be absolutely dreadful.

    The most frustrating part with DeRozan is that he has shown glimpses of awesomeness, whether it's more efficient scoring, improved 3pt shooting, defensive focus, team-oriented play with huge jump in assists, etc... This entire thread is a big 'what if' discussion, which ultimately revolves around a single question: will DeRozan ever be able to address all his weaknesses at once, in an ongoing, consistent basis? If the answer winds up being yes, then he's a keeper. If the answer winds up being no, then there might never be a better time to 'sell high'. There's no right or wrong answer, at least at this moment in time, since none of us can see the future.
    Yikes, what an awesome post. Agree with all this!

    It seems like so many people are bamboozled by the number of points DD scores ignoring the fact that he isn't a very efficient scorer and is a sieve on defence.

    Some one said DD is the best player by far on the Raptors. LOL. Lowry is the best player and it's not really close IMO.

    DD made the all-star team sure but the SG position is historically weak at the moment. All-star selections aren't all that meaningful anyway and no question DD is one of the worst players to make the all-star game this year.

    Don't get me wrong, I like DD, like his attitude, and like the fact that he is improving. I'm not saying trade him or don't, that always depends on what we get back but he's nowhere near as good as some people seem to think he is. His defence is abysmal and as long as that doesn't change, he will continue to be overrated.

    Also, there are still way too many times when he chucks it from far away wasting a possession. He look good when the shots are falling but when they're not ...
    Last edited by avocado; Wed Apr 30th, 2014 at 01:06 PM.

  17. Like mcHAPPY, FoxMachine liked this post
  18. #73
    Super Moderator .40 Cal Flakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    T Dot
    Posts
    1,385
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
    I do recall and good point.

    However I don't recall ever using my powers of moderating to tell people not to discuss because I wasn't a fan of the discussion.
    That's because you never had a green tiger named Battle Cat. I do.


  19. Like mcHAPPY, Niagara Raptor liked this post
  20. #74
    Raptors Republic Rookie
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ottawa
    Posts
    22
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
    Enjoy that opinion.

    I think it is delusional to think that is the case.

    Not because I think you're wrong but because you're talking about 18-20 year olds. Who knows where they will be in 5 years with the talent they possess.
    You can perpetually operate under what-if / grass-is-greener scenarios, in basketball and in life. I personally value the bird-in-hand in this case rather than gamble on a 19 year old who we hope gets to where Demar is now, and projects to where Demar is going. I wouldn't trade Demar for anything less than the #1/#2 pick or in a package that includes Durrant/Lebron/ or George (and I'm not really sold on the over-hyped George anyway).

  21. #75
    Raptors Republic All-Star stooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote sleepz wrote: View Post
    Bosh and VC were elite talents. Carter more than Bosh but when you refer to their 'limitations' as leaders what is the significance of this? Your best players don't have to be leaders, they just have to be best players and difference makers. The "San Antonio" effect is having 3 HOF'ers and one of the greatest coaches ever. Don't know if you can say leadership is the driving force behind the Spurs success.

    You're assuming that guys like Lowry, Amir and Demar will create this type of atmosphere in TO. Not sure it's a suitable comparison at all really. The Spurs guys have huge track records. Toronto has had one season of success when everything has lined up well for them. we haven't even gotten into contract time yet. What if Lowry left (a possibility)? Were you saying the same things about Lowry last season?

    So much of Memphis success is based on the TALENT of Gasol, Randolph, Conley, and they know who they are as a team (defensive minded, inside out on offence) Gasol is an elite talent. Randolph has been an elite talent. Conley is one of the underrated pg's in the league. Allen is arguably the best perimeter defender in the league.

    "Leadership' and chemistry are all good things for teams to have but a lot is being made of intangibles, without recognizing that its the talent and abilities that will determine if you are a real contender vs being a sometimes playoff team.
    Ohhh man.

    Good points. Advanced statistics have isolated the impact of chemistry, talent and leadership and have clearly proven that talent is the cause for productive play in Memphis and San Antonio.

    /end sarcasm

    There is talent everywhere in the league. Every team has talent. These guys have all performed at the very top level of basketball for over a decade.

    What even is talent? Long arms and high jumps? What else falls under the category of talent?

    What you're doing is seeing strong on court results and pointing to talent. But wouldn't leadership and chemistry improve on court results?

    Would Randolph have reached his potential without the Grizzlies franchise? Would Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili even still be in the league if they were drafted by the Bucks?

    The point is, we don't know.

    But anyone who's ever played sports at a semi-serious level can tell you that the proper atmosphere can really decide how much you care for the game, how much you want to improve and how you go about improving. You need the right stimulus from your coach and from your peers to truly reach that ceiling that you're capable of. Some people are able to do it without that, but they aren't in the majority.

    Talent and ability are just as intangible as leadership and chemistry, it's impossible to separate them. All you're doing is pointing to results and saying, "look! talent!". I could do the same and say "look! chemistry!". The real reason for success obviously lies in between, a combination of talent and leadership are required.

    Gasol wasn't all that in LA, Randolph wasn't all that until he came to Memphis. Look at all the cast off players that San Antonio is able to take in and "fix". Carmelo, Amare, Chandler and JR Smith (who slayed the NCAA btw) couldn't make it work in NY. Look at the Pacers, for crying out loud. Dallas has used players who didn't fit elsewhere, brought them in to an excellent organization with top of the line leaders, coaching and staff, and look at what's happened there. The Bucks took in a bunch of semi-functional players that have become wholly dysfunctional. I could go on and on about players performing below or beyond themselves given the situation into which they're placed.
    Last edited by stooley; Wed Apr 30th, 2014 at 01:39 PM.

  22. #76
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,103
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote stooley wrote: View Post
    Ohhh man.

    Good points. Advanced statistics have isolated the impact of chemistry, talent and leadership and have clearly proven that talent is the cause for productive play in Memphis and San Antonio.

    /end sarcasm

    There is talent everywhere in the league. Every team has talent. These guys have all performed at the very top level of basketball for over a decade.

    What even is talent? Long arms and high jumps? What else falls under the category of talent?

    What you're doing is seeing strong on court results and pointing to talent. But wouldn't leadership and chemistry improve on court results?

    Would Randolph have reached his potential without the Grizzlies franchise? Would Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili even still be in the league if they were drafted by the Bucks?

    The point is, we don't know.

    But anyone who's ever played sports at a semi-serious level can tell you that the proper atmosphere can really decide how much you care for the game, how much you want to improve and how you go about improving. You need the right stimulus from your coach and from your peers to truly reach that ceiling that you're capable of. Some people are able to do it without that, but they aren't in the majority.

    Talent and ability are just as intangible as leadership and chemistry, it's impossible to separate them. All you're doing is pointing to results and saying, "look! talent!". I could do the same and say "look! chemistry!". The real reason for success obviously lies in between, a combination of talent and leadership are required.

    Gasol wasn't all that in LA, Randolph wasn't all that until he came to Memphis. Look at all the cast off players that San Antonio is able to take in and "fix". Carmelo, Amare, Chandler and JR Smith (who slayed the NCAA btw) couldn't make it work in NY. Look at the Pacers, for crying out loud. Dallas has used players who didn't fit elsewhere, brought them in to an excellent organization with top of the line leaders, coaching and staff, and look at what's happened there. The Bucks took in a bunch of semi-functional players that have become wholly dysfunctional. I could go on and on about players performing below or beyond themselves given the situation into which they're placed.
    What is talent? Are you serious? Every team has NBA players but they are not all the same. There are degrees to which some players are more talented than others. Not even sure I need to provide examples to support this.

    Randolph was killing it in Portland previously so he was doing fine without the Grizz. He went to Memphis after he had some run-ins and maturity issues, but he has always been Z-Bo. would Tony Parker or Ginobili still be in the league if they played for the Bucks? Yes they would.

    Proper atmosphere trumping actual abilities? Can't say I agree with that either. Coaches can help a player develop and reach their potential but the abilities have to be inherent in that player. And the original post I was responding to had to do with the players leadership being the driving force behind the team. Still don't think anything you've said supports that original premise.

    M.Gasol never played in LA. If you are referring to his brother, you better believe he was a killer prior to his trade to the Lakers. Prior to coming to Memphis, Randolph was a beast with Portland and the Knicks. Check the stats if you don't believe me.

    Lakers won a few rings with Shaq and Kobe btw. There was no chemistry between them and actually quite a bit of animosity. Their talent was better than most other teams. You're dissing the Knicks for this season (and rightfully so) but didn't they win 50 games last year with the same players you mentioned? The Bucks suck because their talent sucks. They lost Jennings and Ellis and Ilyasova is arguably their best player. No amount of chemistry in the world is going to turn them into a 'functional' team bro. They are not performing below their abilities. They just don't have the team (based on their players abilities) to compete.

  23. #77
    Raptors Republic All-Star stooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote sleepz wrote: View Post
    What is talent? Are you serious? Every team has NBA players but they are not all the same. There are degrees to which some players are more talented than others. Not even sure I need to provide examples to support this.

    Randolph was killing it in Portland previously so he was doing fine without the Grizz. He went to Memphis after he had some run-ins and maturity issues, but he has always been Z-Bo. would Tony Parker or Ginobili still be in the league if they played for the Bucks? Yes they would.

    Proper atmosphere trumping actual abilities? Can't say I agree with that either. Coaches can help a player develop and reach their potential but the abilities have to be inherent in that player. And the original post I was responding to had to do with the players leadership being the driving force behind the team. Still don't think anything you've said supports that original premise.

    M.Gasol never played in LA. If you are referring to his brother, you better believe he was a killer prior to his trade to the Lakers. Prior to coming to Memphis, Randolph was a beast with Portland and the Knicks. Check the stats if you don't believe me.

    Lakers won a few rings with Shaq and Kobe btw. There was no chemistry between them and actually quite a bit of animosity. Their talent was better than most other teams. You're dissing the Knicks for this season (and rightfully so) but didn't they win 50 games last year with the same players you mentioned? The Bucks suck because their talent sucks. They lost Jennings and Ellis and Ilyasova is arguably their best player. No amount of chemistry in the world is going to turn them into a 'functional' team bro. They are not performing below their abilities. They just don't have the team (based on their players abilities) to compete.
    What I'm saying is, how in the hell do you separate talent from performance?

    How many players become as good as they possible can? 1%? The rest settle in somewhere short of their ceiling. Leadership and chemistry help you reach that.

    And yes, when I ask you "what is talent?" It's a real question. Because it's different than performance, and I'm not sure you're recognizing that.

    Finally, I don't think anyone's saying that leadership is the one and only driving force behind a team. We're just saying that it plays a big role.

    edit: oh and woops, I thought Marc played a couple seasons in LA before he was traded.

    and yes, kobe and shaq didn't like each other, but they had one of the greatest leaders ever in Phil Jackson guiding them. I'm not sure they'd have been as successful without him. Either way, that's one team that met expectations with poor chemistry.
    Last edited by stooley; Wed Apr 30th, 2014 at 02:30 PM.

  24. #78
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cambridge, ON
    Posts
    2,040
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote stooley wrote: View Post
    What I'm saying is, how in the hell do you separate talent from performance?

    How many players become as good as they possible can? 1%? The rest settle in somewhere short of their ceiling. Leadership and chemistry help you reach that.

    And yes, when I ask you "what is talent?" It's a real question. Because it's different than performance, and I'm not sure you're recognizing that.

    Finally, I don't think anyone's saying that leadership is the one and only driving force behind a team. We're just saying that it plays a big role.

    edit: oh and woops, I thought Marc played a couple seasons in LA before he was traded.
    Ultimately, the only value talent has lies in the performance it produces. So in the context of talent versus production - the answer to the question "What is talent?" is "Who cares?"

    Production is how talent is measured, because outcomes are what matter in sports. And if you look at all the best players, yes, they are in fact productive, even if on bad teams. And maybe they become MORE productive with better teams, but they sure show signs of that productivity well before then.

  25. #79
    Raptors Republic All-Star stooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    2,115
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote DanH wrote: View Post
    Ultimately, the only value talent has lies in the performance it produces. So in the context of talent versus production - the answer to the question "What is talent?" is "Who cares?"

    Production is how talent is measured, because outcomes are what matter in sports. And if you look at all the best players, yes, they are in fact productive, even if on bad teams. And maybe they become MORE productive with better teams, but they sure show signs of that productivity well before then.
    Ok well, I'm arguing that talent isn't the only factor in performance. There is a mental aspect as well which can be nurtured by the right kind of leaders.

    So performance is actually measuring a plethora of variables that affect that person, one of which is the leadership present on his team, or as he developed.

    My question of what is talent was in response to the statement that talent is the only thing that matters, period.

    So, a player's attitude obviously affects his own performance. To further that, what effect does it have on his team mates beyond the on court aspect of the game?

    Like if you put JV on the Bucks for these past couple of years, does he have 3 DUIs by now? And has he put in less time bulking up and working on his game? And does he ever become great?
    Last edited by stooley; Wed Apr 30th, 2014 at 02:42 PM.

  26. #80
    Raptors Republic All-Star JawsGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    1,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote sleepz wrote: View Post

    Lakers won a few rings with Shaq and Kobe btw. There was no chemistry between them and actually quite a bit of animosity. Their talent was better than most other teams. You're dissing the Knicks for this season (and rightfully so) but didn't they win 50 games last year with the same players you mentioned? The Bucks suck because their talent sucks. They lost Jennings and Ellis and Ilyasova is arguably their best player. No amount of chemistry in the world is going to turn them into a 'functional' team bro. They are not performing below their abilities. They just don't have the team (based on their players abilities) to compete.
    Phil Jackson's leadership?

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 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
  •