Letter from Bryan Colangelo

[jlongs]

The one and only thing I disagree with BC is in his faith in Andrea developing into something more, because the more we wait and see, the more we keep on losing and sucking defensively. I know it's not his fault alone, but with him having more deficiencies, BC maybe should have tried to complement BARGS rather than Bosh.

We can blame BC, we can blame Bosh, but let's not forget, we can also blame CANADA. Yeah you bet that factored in which free agents were willing to even consider playing for the Raps. So all these free agents are available, but they actually have to WANT to play for your team, and that works against our favor.

[dn66]

Using the word rebuilding is a big no-no in pro sports. It scares away ticketbuyers.

And corporate sponsors.

[tonious35]

Kind of sounds like BC is trying to deflect some of the blame onto Bosh for his crap free-agent signings

Pretty much that is what a Suit does when he gets backed into a corner. A samurai would allow the blame go all to him and save his entire team, then stab himself in the torso to complete the process.

[tonious35]

The one and only thing I disagree with BC is in his faith in Andrea developing into something more, because the more we wait and see, the more we keep on losing and sucking defensively. I know it's not his fault alone, but with him having more deficiencies, BC maybe should have tried to complement BARGS rather than Bosh.

We can blame BC, we can blame Bosh, but let's not forget, we can also blame CANADA. Yeah you bet that factored in which free agents were willing to even consider playing for the Raps. So all these free agents are available, but they actually have to WANT to play for your team, and that works against our favor.

The only blame is on BC and on some of us fans that two years ago a lot of us did not fully understand what it really takes to make a functional NBA team.

Talent is very important, yes, but it is how the skill sets match on the court and also how well the teammates like each other or at least tolerate each other, including the coaches. BC terribly neglected those little factors and the S@#% hit the fan big-time.

[Rap Challenger]

Forum members,

Consider the political situation Bryan Colangelo faces: he's employed by MLSE, a Canadian company with a Canadian owner, doing business in Canada. It's the only surviving team in Canada - lest we not forget the fate of that other Canadian franchise!

I think it's conceivable he walked into a situation as follows. First, the Rob Babcockness of the team. Babcock drafted Bosh. After he (Babcock) architected the worst deal I've ever seen to send VC packing, Bosh becomes the new face of the franchise - BY DEFAULT, not because he was a legitimate star. Bosh gets treated like a star; the ownership starts kissing his ass; he becomes the centre of the offense by default, and he develops into a better than average PF with Mitchell riding his ass daily (Mitchell and English deserve a TON of credit for Bosh's development). Not suprisingly the team continues to suck, and Babcock loses the job.

Enter BryCo - great improvement on the GM side. Additions of Ford, Parker and Garbajosa, IMO, we're brilliant. (To this day, Ford has also not been giving enough credit for the impact he had on this franchise!). Everyone in MLSE, including the fans, were over-selling BryCo on the fact that Bosh was the centrepiece; the franchise player. I just have this feeling - a suspicion if you will - that BryCo wasn't sold on Bosh. I CERTAINLY HAVE NEVER FELT BOSH WAS EVEN HALF THE PLAYER CARTER WAS; he just had a better off court personality. Bryco probably didn't fire Mitchell or trade Bosh right away - that was rockin' the boat too much; he'd already come in and changed a lot.

BryCo finally got his wish and got rid of Mitchell (tough political move given Mitchell's popularity in the franchise) and then made the biggest mistake of his career in TO by hiring Triano as his replacement (again, a political move to keep his Canadian boss happy, SOME fans happy (NOT ME!), and Chris Bosh - soft coach for a soft "franchise" player).

Then the terror of last summer - this talk of trying to surround Bosh with his buddies and all the other BS angling to try to keep Bosh happy. WTF? Did anybody ever honestly think Bosh was going to bring us the trophy????? To me, BryCo clearly had drunk the kool aid, and I started to worry. Under the guise of some truly impressive wheeling and dealing - unloading Kapono, picking up Hedo and Jarret - he clearly was comitting to Bosh and I was panicking!

In the end, I couldn't be happier that everything blew up in their faces. Bosh is not a winner; he's a goofy, nerdy, gangly guy who will never be good enough to be "the man" or one of "the mans" in the NBA, period.

So why do I still support BryCo? Because I think he's known this all along. The problem I have with BryCo is that he needs bigger balls. I think he has good instincts for building purely offensive, entertaining teams, but he needs to better act on those instincts and stop playing cowardly politics with Bosh, Triano and MLSE.

Bryan Colangelo,

Here's your chance Bryan. The nightmare that was Chris Bosh is gone. Too bad it wasn't on your terms. All said, you're smart enough and saavy enough to build a better team. You had the right ideas when you came in - but somewhere along the way, it feels like you chickened out a bit, and tried to keep others at MLSE happy at the expense of your vision and better judgment.

I hope you have the balls to get rid of Triano, and get this team a proper coach; an experienced, talented coach who will follow you and challenge you and the players too! I'm talking about the Avery Johnsons, Larry Browns, Byron Scotts, Scott Skiles, Jeff Van Gundy's of the league. You can't spend enough on the coach -- it's the most crucial piece for a young, developing team.

I wish you good fortune, hard work, and I continue to support you. I still maintain we're lucky to have you as GM in Toronto!

[malefax]

Pretty much that is what a Suit does when he gets backed into a corner. A samurai would allow the blame go all to him and save his entire team, then stab himself in the torso to complete the process.

That is probably why there are not any samurai any more.

[Vellassco]

I think BC is a good poker player. Knows the rules well, knows key persons around NBA, willing to take risk when needed, hes good at relations and on paper works. but, BUT, He knows basketball as far as "a poker player " can. He should have known better? not necessarily. His biggest and fatal error was his coach choice (at least it was not the right time for Triano)

[Vellassco]

I think below speech is fitting toraps style more than triano's ,esp considering how passionate raps fan are.

Cavs coach Byron Scott, who accepted the job last month not knowing if James would be on his roster, said he liked what (Cavs owner Dan) Gilbert said.

"He showed last night his passion to win," Scott said at a news conference at Cleveland Clinic Courts, the team's state-of-the-art $25 million training facility Gilbert built not far from James' home. "He wants to win. That's the bottom line. I want an owner like that. I want an owner who will sit in our corner, who wants to win basketball games and wants to win championships. I love that about him. I'm still very, very excited about this team and the situation that I'm in.

"I came to work this morning with a big smile on my face knowing I was getting ready for a big season."

[Forge]

What a pimp B.C. is. I don't think he needed give us fans a letter, but my god do I appreciate that! I'm behind this guy a hundred percent and always have been. He's doen an unbelievable job in not letting the Raps get screwed over here, and he hasn't gone the desperate route once in Chris' departure. Here's to the next era!

Agree. Big props to BC for getting the best possible assets he can obtain from the heat, especially since their cupboard was bare. I hope BC goes after Udonis Haslem, good tough veteran player who plays good defence and it would certainly screw over the Heat (as Dwade loves Haslem).

[RBB]

...are all of you too young or too blind to recall what occurred during the VC trade days.


VC's stock was at an alltime low. Few wanted the guy. 99% of TO fans wanted him out. If you don't recall how bad it actually was, just go back and try to search the sports-headlines. When the VC trade trade occurred, people were happy. Not b/c we got back anything, but b/c we got rid of that #### Vince.

Seriously - hindsight is 20/20. Backcock was garbage, but at the time VC had so little value it was incredible. Babcock did terribly, however we weren't going to get much more than what Babcock had received.

Flash forward to BC's moves. Again...people are looking back in hindsight but the majority of people liked the majority of BC's moves.

I see people complain about BC changing 75% of the team every year. I also see people complain when he tries to luck up guys for 5 years (such as what he is doing, did with the MLE every year, etc..).

One can question whether you agree with whom he decides to lock up long term...but not neccesarily that he is purposely trying to change 75% of the team year-over-year.

Its obvious that he is overpaying a touch. Why? Uhmm...this is how you keep talent happy. If they are happy, they are more likely to try to perform to the next level. He also likes to lock up players who he believes will be getting better (and thus lock them in for currently above mkt wages, but hopefully in a year or two it will be way below as they deserve higher wages. Given how well he has treated them in the past and stuck with them though, this gives him goodwill and they will still perform until the next contract. It makes complete sense.)


You can't argue both sides. Come on folks...take a step back.

[Quixotic]

...are all of you too young or too blind to recall what occurred during the VC trade days.

VC's stock was at an alltime low. Few wanted the guy. 99% of TO fans wanted him out. If you don't recall how bad it actually was, just go back and try to search the sports-headlines. When the VC trade trade occurred, people were happy. Not b/c we got back anything, but b/c we got rid of that #### Vince.

Seriously - hindsight is 20/20. Backcock was garbage, but at the time VC had so little value it was incredible. Babcock did terribly, however we weren't going to get much more than what Babcock had received.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. And yes, my memory of those days (and even the Damon Stoudamire days) is fine. Your memory, though, might need a bit of work.

Of course VC's stock was at an all-time low. He had only been stinking it up that season after several brilliant seasons, to the point where the coach benched him during the team's important minutes. Any-time your performance decreases like that after averaging over 20+ ppg per season, your stock is inherently at an all-time low. But "few wanted the guy" can't be farther from the truth, and "99% of fans wanted him out" is a stat you just made up, not to mention the fans that wanted him out didn't want him out for nothing in return.

When you say fans were happy after we traded him, that's you coloring the events with how YOU felt. If the moment the trade was announced can be considered 20/20 hindsight then fine, but it's not like years later, looking back, we finally realized how shitty that trade was. That realization was instant and the only reason anyone might have thought the deal was okay is if 1) they thought Mourning would actually play for the Raptors (oh Raptor fans and our fascination with big names), and 2) they didn't know who Aaron Williams and Eric Williams were. The reality of that situation broke pretty soon after the trade too. The only criticism truly deserving of being called hindsight is the realization now that we essentially traded Vince for Joey Graham and a bunch of cap ballast.

How do you know we wouldn't have gotten more than Babcock received? Do you have an alternate universe machine? I certainly don't, and while I can't tell you what we would have received, I can certainly say we did not try to trade him for very long. It's not like we didn't have 2.5 years remaining on his contract to trade him for crap. If his value was that low, as you suggest, it certainly could not have hurt to wait longer. No, Babcock pounced on the trade almost immediately -- a trade involving two meaningless D-Leaguers would have taken as long to complete -- and then instead of suspending Mourning without pay for refusing to report, he again did the "gentlemanly" thing and bought his contract out, citing the team's doctors as saying Mourning did not meet the medical standards for playing with the sad-sack Raptors, though apparently he was fine enough to play for the 2005-2006 NBA champions. The trade should have been made contingent on all players passing their physicals, and the moment Mourning failed his, we should have at least forced them to substitute someone else for him or rescind the trade. Realizing he'd go on to win the championship is hindsight, but we already knew in February 2005 that rather than buying him out, we should have just suspended his butt without pay as a team with any pride remaining would do.

[RBB]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. And yes, my memory of those days (and even the Damon Stoudamire days) is fine. Your memory, though, might need a bit of work.

Of course VC's stock was at an all-time low. He had only been stinking it up that season after several brilliant seasons, to the point where the coach benched him during the team's important minutes. Any-time your performance decreases like that after averaging over 20+ ppg per season, your stock is inherently at an all-time low. But "few wanted the guy" can't be farther from the truth, and "99% of fans wanted him out" is a stat you just made up, not to mention the fans that wanted him out didn't want him out for nothing in return.

When you say fans were happy after we traded him, that's you coloring the events with how YOU felt. If the moment the trade was announced can be considered 20/20 hindsight then fine, but it's not like years later, looking back, we finally realized how shitty that trade was. That realization was instant and the only reason anyone might have thought the deal was okay is if 1) they thought Mourning would actually play for the Raptors (oh Raptor fans and our fascination with big names), and 2) they didn't know who Aaron Williams and Eric Williams were. The reality of that situation broke pretty soon after the trade too. The only criticism truly deserving of being called hindsight is the realization now that we essentially traded Vince for Joey Graham and a bunch of cap ballast.

How do you know we wouldn't have gotten more than Babcock received? Do you have an alternate universe machine? I certainly don't, and while I can't tell you what we would have received, I can certainly say we did not try to trade him for very long. It's not like we didn't have 2.5 years remaining on his contract to trade him for crap. If his value was that low, as you suggest, it certainly could not have hurt to wait longer. No, Babcock pounced on the trade almost immediately -- a trade involving two meaningless D-Leaguers would have taken as long to complete -- and then instead of suspending Mourning without pay for refusing to report, he again did the "gentlemanly" thing and bought his contract out, citing the team's doctors as saying Mourning did not meet the medical standards for playing with the sad-sack Raptors, though apparently he was fine enough to play for the 2005-2006 NBA champions. The trade should have been made contingent on all players passing their physicals, and the moment Mourning failed his, we should have at least forced them to substitute someone else for him or rescind the trade. Realizing he'd go on to win the championship is hindsight, but we already knew in February 2005 that rather than buying him out, we should have just suspended his butt without pay as a team with any pride remaining would do.

99% was an embellishment. It is not a true fact. My recollection is just fine of how people felt about Vince, and how people (generally) felt about the trade. It is not solely ME that felt that way - people wanted him gone. (I have been searching to try to find comments and postings from 2004 to backup this claim but currently to no avail).

You said that babcock jumped quickly on a trade..but its not as if this was a 1-week or 1-month window where Babcock was shopping him - they were shopping him for a while. Corollary being that offers could not have been superb since (or likely would have been much better) they got minimal. Waiting 2.5 years to trade him - a lot can happen in that amount of time to have sweetened the deal. Its a good thing that GMs in ANY sport usually wait that long. Give me a break, be realistik and bridge the gap between theory vs. practicality.

[Quixotic]

99% was an embellishment. It is not a true fact. My recollection is just fine of how people felt about Vince, and how people (generally) felt about the trade. It is not solely ME that felt that way - people wanted him gone. (I have been searching to try to find comments and postings from 2004 to backup this claim but currently to no avail).

You said that babcock jumped quickly on a trade..but its not as if this was a 1-week or 1-month window where Babcock was shopping him - they were shopping him for a while. Corollary being that offers could not have been superb since (or likely would have been much better) they got minimal. Waiting 2.5 years to trade him - a lot can happen in that amount of time to have sweetened the deal. Its a good thing that GMs in ANY sport usually wait that long. Give me a break, be realistik and bridge the gap between theory vs. practicality.

Glad you admit it was embellishment. So tell me, is embellishment your usual method of making good arguments? Anything else you embellished?

I did say that fans that wanted him out did not want a straight dump. There's a big difference between "please trade him" and "please get rid of him at any cost". I was one of the "please trade him" group, but if you're going to get rid of him for nothing, I'd rather just send him home for as long as it takes to re-think his priorities.

You are mistaken that they were shopping him for a while. From your memory, at what point did the fans or the organization decide we needed to trade him? It couldn't have been before the season began, because despite him asking for a trade, we had yet to see his disappointing play. So how many games did it take for Mitchell to start benching him in 4th quarters, and for it to sink in that a trade was definitely necessary? If this was an instant conversation, it'd be interesting to see your answer because I fear your answer will change when I tell you now he was traded a month and a half into the season.

Trade requests happen all the time, and rarely do they get fulfilled right away, and sometimes not at all. Lesser players have been shopped around for longer and for better results. Your corollary is baseless, since "if they couldn't get much from him in a minimal amount of time, it's unlikely they would have gotten better" is silly. It's exactly the point that they would have likely gotten better had they waited longer. No, I'm not saying they should have waited 2.5 years, but because he still had 2.5 years left, they had time to move him. Impatience was our worst enemy, and inexperience Babcock's.

When Carter asked for a trade, every GM in the league was hoping to lowball the Raptors. That's how it works when someone announces that publicly. If Babcock was worth his salt, he would have talked to Carter privately and told him that he would satisfy his trade request if he either publicly revoked his trade request or at least played better. Waiting them out could only help, and it's not like the team had been competing for the two years prior. With 24 and 33 wins under their belt, and the season starting off 7-14, was there a reason to trade him for nothing? I ask again, if the offer was so bad, what would have been the harm in waiting? When has "Sell low" become proper procedure?

"Give me a break, be realistik and bridge the gap between theory vs. practicality."

The fact that the Vince Carter trade was so ridiculed by league pundits (and no, not 20/20 hindsight years later either) should tell you that it did not bridge the gap between theory and practicality. Trading Carter for another star is theory; not rushing into things is practicality; rushing into things and giving Carter away to a conference rival is plain stupidity, no other way to put it, and I think you've somehow been stuck in rationalizing the Carter trade for the past 5+ years. You somehow can admit Babcock's trade was terrible but it was somehow still the best we could do? I moved on a long time ago, but that doesn't make the trade smell any better.

Anyway, just an advance warning. I probably won't be around to respond to anything you might come with, but it certainly doesn't mean you're right. =P

[RBB]

Glad you admit it was embellishment. So tell me, is embellishment your usual method of making good arguments? Anything else you embellished?

I did say that fans that wanted him out did not want a straight dump. There's a big difference between "please trade him" and "please get rid of him at any cost". I was one of the "please trade him" group, but if you're going to get rid of him for nothing, I'd rather just send him home for as long as it takes to re-think his priorities.

You are mistaken that they were shopping him for a while. From your memory, at what point did the fans or the organization decide we needed to trade him? It couldn't have been before the season began, because despite him asking for a trade, we had yet to see his disappointing play. So how many games did it take for Mitchell to start benching him in 4th quarters, and for it to sink in that a trade was definitely necessary? If this was an instant conversation, it'd be interesting to see your answer because I fear your answer will change when I tell you now he was traded a month and a half into the season.

Trade requests happen all the time, and rarely do they get fulfilled right away, and sometimes not at all. Lesser players have been shopped around for longer and for better results. Your corollary is baseless, since "if they couldn't get much from him in a minimal amount of time, it's unlikely they would have gotten better" is silly. It's exactly the point that they would have likely gotten better had they waited longer. No, I'm not saying they should have waited 2.5 years, but because he still had 2.5 years left, they had time to move him. Impatience was our worst enemy, and inexperience Babcock's.

When Carter asked for a trade, every GM in the league was hoping to lowball the Raptors. That's how it works when someone announces that publicly. If Babcock was worth his salt, he would have talked to Carter privately and told him that he would satisfy his trade request if he either publicly revoked his trade request or at least played better. Waiting them out could only help, and it's not like the team had been competing for the two years prior. With 24 and 33 wins under their belt, and the season starting off 7-14, was there a reason to trade him for nothing? I ask again, if the offer was so bad, what would have been the harm in waiting? When has "Sell low" become proper procedure?

"Give me a break, be realistik and bridge the gap between theory vs. practicality."

The fact that the Vince Carter trade was so ridiculed by league pundits (and no, not 20/20 hindsight years later either) should tell you that it did not bridge the gap between theory and practicality. Trading Carter for another star is theory; not rushing into things is practicality; rushing into things and giving Carter away to a conference rival is plain stupidity, no other way to put it, and I think you've somehow been stuck in rationalizing the Carter trade for the past 5+ years. You somehow can admit Babcock's trade was terrible but it was somehow still the best we could do? I moved on a long time ago, but that doesn't make the trade smell any better.

Anyway, just an advance warning. I probably won't be around to respond to anything you might come with, but it certainly doesn't mean you're right. =P

Par 1: I'm not going to respond to something puerile and pedantic. Shot at me rather than any argument.

Par 2: That is you in the "no point to get rid of him just for the sake of it camp". Even on these boards there was a lot of chatter about sending Calderon to MIA "just because" if a possible S&T occurred. Can you definitely say the majority swung with "get rid of him just b/c to MIA for the salary dump" vs. "Trade him to MIA for some assets". Reading the boards - I saw more than enough argue for both. Same as with VC - there were enough, in my opinion, that wanted a straight dump.

Par 3: This is not stating that you are correct....but for the life of me I am unable to re-call if, in the previous year, what had occurred with VC. He demanded a trade in Sep. and was traded in Dec. (I think) - thats 3 months (which is an eternity in sports when searching for a trade). If I remember what had occurred previously - might have been over 3 months that people were tired of his act.

Par 4: Different cities - different mgmt - different expectations - different players - different roles on the team. This is not ceteris parabis - situations can't be compared. To believe that just because you wait longer things may get better is also faulty logic. I agree, however, that my original thinking may be flawed. I think that in this situation we are both wrong (having chosen different sides of the argument). In the end there is no magic formula, and neither is a guarantee, and neither circumstance can be proven (re: timing).

Par 5: How does Carter care what it does to the organization (in terms of attaining better assets)? He actions clearly show he didn't care. How will it help him improve his situation by playing better? If I was a child, I would become a disaster so they woudl trade me faster. Carter, as bad as he was and behaved, could have done MUCH worse things. Not that I think that this happened...but whose to say Carter didn't tell babcock "get me out of here before the break or just wait and see how I act and my effect on the rest of my teammates". IE Marbury. Further, re: sell low. Wrong. What you described is actually part of behavioural finance theory and its called loss aversion. You don't hold onto your losers - you get rid of them, take the hit, and start using your capital quicker in better investments. Talk to any knowledgeable finance guy.

Par 6: Your argument is that the masses are usually right. I'm not sure that I buy that to be truth. The trade was terrible - but it likely was close to the best that Babcock could do, given the circumstances that he was under. I am aware how counter-intuitive that sounds, however as you can see, I am not succinct in expressing my ideas so will try to figure out a better way of expressing it.

Par 7: No worries. You've brought up some valid points - I don't neccesarily agree with the majority of it though. Have a good night man, and keep'r stiff.

[RaptorsFan4Life]

Link to letter on Raptors site
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm going to wait and see how the Raptors season turns out before making my judgement.

[TRX]

General managers from most teams wouldn't give in to Carter so easily. Want a trade? Play hard, play well or we're not moving you. You want to be a dick to try and force your way out? Suspension. Stay away from the team until you want to behave.