Everything Bargnani: Grumble, Grumble, Grumble

[Tim W.]

Well when you say stuff like this:

It looks like you do think you are Nostradamus. Just man up and say "I was really expecting him to get traded but it didnt happen, so lets move on". I wouldnt think any less of you as i do now.

Ive said this to you before, its never-ending. If Bargnani surprises us all, people are still going to say, well its not enough. If he continues to disappoint, well, people are going to say I told you so.

I think you're reading too much into it, quite frankly, but, to be honest, I still think there's a good chance he'll be gone, soon. And I've never felt that the end of last season. I think with such a compressed offseason, making big trades became more difficult. If you notice, most of the deals we've seen over the last week have been signings, not trades. Trades seem to take a while to go through, for some reason. Maybe there's more back and forth and testing the waters. Who knows.

Maybe I was more hopeful than anything, in writing the post. Looking at the evidence, it did appear that Colangelo might have changed his mind about Bargnani. And that still might be the case. This season seems to be a do or die season for many.

Besides, it's not as if I have any inside information here. My guess on what someone 3 thousand miles away is as good as anyones. I just thought putting the facts together came up with an interesting possibility.

[Apollo]

This is my gripe about Bargnani discussions, some people just cant go through one good post without mentioning all his "liabilities". We get it! For crying out loud. It starts with the good stuff and eventually somebody comes in and points out the bad. Irks me coz it just ruins good discussions.

Credit where credit is due. Seems fair and I wish it was commonly held view point around here. Bargnani gets dumped on when he deserves it and when he doesn't. Actually I think he gets dumped on more if anyone dare mention something that could be viewed as positive. I'm rooting for him this year as long as he keeps working hard. Go Bargnani, go.

[Tim W.]

That's your interpretation. He might have viewed it as he was more valuable as a jump shooter or that he had a higher level of energy throughout the game or he was less susceptible to injuries or whatever. Jumper shooter doesn't necessarily mean lazy. Is Ray Allen lazy? What about Reggie Miller?

Reggie Miller and Ray Allen were ALWAYS mainly jump shooters. And I did mention the injuries.

You've gone off the track, you're in the ditch.

No, I'm not. The fact is that players who break out later in their careers are the exception. Saying this person can do something because an exception proves it doesn't generally ring true. What it means is that in some rare cases something can happen. FOr some reason, though, people think that Bargnani will become the exception.

Only his hard ass new coach who is praising the hell out of him(vocal leadership, focused on more of a post presence, focused on improving defense and rebounding) and the fact that he's reported before anyone on the team.

Great, a coach is saying nice things about a player. I've never heard that before. Nor have I heard things from a coach that didn't actually turn out to be true. That would be unheard of.

No, he doesn't. I don't think Al Jeff is better than him on defense. That guy is a baaad defender. Either way, it doesn't matter. You're going to be forced to sit through it at the end of the day. It's going to play out, he's not going to get traded right now because it makes no sense. Welcome to at least one more season of Andrea Bargnani, Tim. Enjoy.

So how come tbihis tries to rake me through the coals for saying that I thought Bargnani might be traded, but you're allowed to say that he's not going to get traded?

And I never said Al Jefferson was a better defender. I didn't even allude to it. I just said Bargnani would have to be a better defender than any of those guys for him to be acceptable.

[Tim W.]

This is my gripe about Bargnani discussions, some people just cant go through one good post without mentioning all his "liabilities". We get it! For crying out loud. It starts with the good stuff and eventually somebody comes in and points out the bad. Irks me coz it just ruins good discussions.

Because for many of us the bad outweighs the good. Try having a discussion about any of the current Republican candidates. They all might have their good points, but there's no way in hell I'd want any of them in charge of their country. That's a scary thought.

[Mess]

Trades seem to take a while to go through, for some reason.

I hope that's a David Stern zing. I think the fact that both CP3 and Dwight haven't been traded yet makes some teams hesitant in moving any assets they possess for lesser players.

[Tim W.]

I hope that's a David Stern zing. I think the fact that both CP3 and Dwight haven't been traded yet makes some teams hesitant in moving any assets they possess for lesser players.

Actually, it was just a general statement, but you're probably right. Until the big guys get sorted out, teams are probably hesitant to make any big moves because the terrain is so unsettled. Personally, I think the Clippers are a perfect trading partner to get Bargnani (playing behind Griffin and Jordan), but without knowing if they'll get Paul, then they're not going to do anything to risk not getting him. And Matt says he thinks Bargnani will be traded to the Lakers, but they're still in the running for Paul.

[GarbageTime]

This is my gripe about Bargnani discussions, some people just cant go through one good post without mentioning all his "liabilities". We get it! For crying out loud. It starts with the good stuff and eventually somebody comes in and points out the bad. Irks me coz it just ruins good discussions.

I fail to see the point where you were forced to continue the discussion? If people don't like it... don't read it or get involved. Nobody forced you or apollo or anyone else is to respond to Tim or myself or anyone or vice versa.

Don't act like its everyone else who got the discussion going you and apollo started with:

I just hope that if he does turn it around people support him. If they don't then their dislike for him has nothing to do with basketball and they should self-analyze it.

hahahaha the guy hasnt even showed improvement and some people who post here are already throwing him under the bus EVEN IF HE IMPROVES. So i doubt that will happen.

apparently, even if he improves, will it be good enough for him to not become a LIABILITY?
apparently, even if he improves, its better to trade him coz for sure he will REGRESS.
apparently, even if he improves, will he be good enough to be a key part of a contender?
apparently, there is minimal chance he'll improve because historically, he never showed improvement or the desire or drive to improve.

So dont bank on people support him even if he turns around. These people supporting him are as big as Bargnani's chances of winning the MVP award during his basketball career. Very big.

Me, ive always said ill support him as long as he's a raptor. And improve or not, as long as he's a raptor, ill be a supporter.

[Apollo]

Reggie Miller and Ray Allen were ALWAYS mainly jump shooters. And I did mention the injuries.

Right and they're not viewed as lazy.

No, I'm not. The fact is that players who break out later in their careers are the exception. Saying this person can do something because an exception proves it doesn't generally ring true. What it means is that in some rare cases something can happen. FOr some reason, though, people think that Bargnani will become the exception.

He doesn't even need to "breakout" He just needs to raise his defense from mediocrity to average. I don't know if he'll do it but I'm certainly not going to completely blow off positive information because he's yet to improve his defense to date. I'm trying to approach this from a neutral perspective.

Great, a coach is saying nice things about a player. I've never heard that before. Nor have I heard things from a coach that didn't actually turn out to be true. That would be unheard of.

So you're implying that the new Raptors coach could be telling us lies? Why do you feel he would start off his career like that in Toronto? Casey has a very good reputation.

So how come tbihis tries to rake me through the coals for saying that I thought Bargnani might be traded, but you're allowed to say that he's not going to get traded?

I'm not going to get into complaints here. You can PM me if you see something wrong. I will say that you can post what you want as long as you abide by the rules.

And I never said Al Jefferson was a better defender. I didn't even allude to it. I just said Bargnani would have to be a better defender than any of those guys for him to be acceptable.

Right and maybe he will, maybe he won't. We'll find out in 2012 I'm sure.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Because for many of us the bad outweighs the good. Try having a discussion about any of the current Republican candidates. They all might have their good points, but there's no way in hell I'd want any of them in charge of their country. That's a scary thought.

Therein lies the frustration that I sense many people have when discussing Bargnani with you.

There have been threads about how Bargnani could improve to become a better player, or this thread talking about IF Bargnani DOES improve (ie: debate about candidates), but you always seem to take it back to "who cares, Bargnani should be traded" or "Amir is better than Bargnani" (ie: all the candidates are bad). People know your perspective on Bargnani quite well, that you would prefer him traded. BUT, if the thread is based on the assumption that Bargnani will be on the Raptors 2012 roster (like this one), it's frustrating when your input continues to be one-dimensional and falls outside that thread's frame of reference.

This thread is NOT discussing whether or not Bargnani should be traded. This thread is NOT discussing whether or not you think Bargnani will be traded. This thread is NOT discussing whether you think Bargnani can or will improve his defense/rebounding this season. The thread IS based on these two assumptions: 1) Bargnani will be a Raptor in 2012 2) Bargnani will improve defense/rebounding at least up to a respectable level under Casey. If you disagree with those two assumptions and therefore the entire premise of the thread, don't comment. We know you want Bargnani traded and doubt in his ability and/or desire to improve his defense/rebounding - but if you're not going to comment and add to the discussion within the definition of the thread, then there's no point reading/commenting on this particular thread.

It's like having a debate about whether black or white is the best color, and somebody comes along and posts a diatribe about why purple is the superior color and that anybody who continues the black/white debate is stupid because they are shades anyway, not colors. Who cares? For better or worse, the debate is whether black or white is the best color... respect the debate and stay on topic, or stay on the sideline.

[GarbageTime]

Therein lies the frustration that I sense many people have when discussing Bargnani with you.

There have been threads about how Bargnani could improve to become a better player, or this thread talking about IF Bargnani DOES improve (ie: debate about candidates), but you always seem to take it back to "who cares, Bargnani should be traded" or "Amir is better than Bargnani" (ie: all the candidates are bad). People know your perspective on Bargnani quite well, that you would prefer him traded. BUT, if the thread is based on the assumption that Bargnani will be on the Raptors 2012 roster (like this one), it's frustrating when your input continues to be one-dimensional and falls outside that thread's frame of reference.

This thread is NOT discussing whether or not Bargnani should be traded. This thread is NOT discussing whether or not you think Bargnani will be traded. This thread is NOT discussing whether you think Bargnani can or will improve his defense/rebounding this season. The thread IS based on these two assumptions: 1) Bargnani will be a Raptor in 2012 2) Bargnani will improve defense/rebounding at least up to a respectable level under Casey. If you disagree with those two assumptions and therefore the entire premise of the thread, don't comment. We know you want Bargnani traded and doubt in his ability and/or desire to improve his defense/rebounding - but if you're not going to comment and add to the discussion within the definition of the thread, then there's no point reading/commenting on this particular thread.

so some one criticizing the 'premise' of the thread is not adding anything? You only add if you just assume what everyone else is assuming? (by the way the thread started as a, technically, comparison of Bargnani and Nowitzki, made by Casey, and NOT "what if Bargnani is awesome?" thread)


I think some people need to find Doug Smith's blog. Everything is always sunshine over there and you don't have to worry about Bargnani being criticized as anything BC does is gold.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

so some one criticizing the 'premise' of the thread is not adding anything? You only add if you just assume what everyone else is assuming? (by the way the thread started as a, technically, comparison of Bargnani and Nowitzki, made by Casey, and NOT "what if Bargnani is awesome?" thread)


I think some people need to find Doug Smith's blog. Everything is always sunshine over there and you don't have to worry about Bargnani being criticized as anything BC does is gold.

Didn't tbhibis start the thread with the stated assumption that Bargnani would improve under Casey and this discussion was what people would feel/say once that happened?? Or was that just an early post in the thread? If so, my bad!

[Apollo]

GT, in regards to the statment directing people to Doug Smith. The problem here is that good critics value both positive and negative information. They don't focus on solely the negative and try to discredit the positives. That's in the realm of theory debunkers. That's not to say you're a debunker, because I don't feel that way but there certainly are "Bargnani debunkers" around here just waiting to pounce on any shred of positive information with the same generic statements over and over again.

One more thing. As a poster, I don't like this telling people "if you don't like it, get out" and that goes for people on both sides of the fence. I think we should alway try to stick to the topic though. I am guilty as charge when it come to getting off topic myself at times and I realize it's easy to do but I do my best not to go there.

[Hugmenot]

Have you ever read Moneyball, or any book for that matter (just poking fun )? You would think decades of coaching experience equates to having all the angles covered. But believe it or not, there is dogma in professional sports that can sometimes prevent people from thinking outside the box, and adapting to the game as it evolves.

Some coaches have an old school mentality, where sticking a small forward on a center would be unheard of. 7 foot jump shooters didn't exist 30 years ago, but times have changed, yet strategies may not have necessarily caught up.

No, I have not read Moneyball but I can recommend Science Fiction and Fantasy books if you like the genres.

As to your old school mentality comment, that's your opinion and I do not share it. Unlike baseball where outside entities took the lead in sabermetrics, basketball teams embraced analytics early and seriously.

[Nilanka]

No, I have not read Moneyball but I can recommend Science Fiction and Fantasy books if you like the genres.

As to your old school mentality comment, that's your opinion and I do not share it. Unlike baseball where outside entities took the lead in sabermetrics, basketball teams embraced analytics early and seriously.

Although the movie starred Brad Pitt, Moneyball was a true story.

As for basketball and analytics, some teams embrace it, not all.

[Tim W.]

Right and they're not viewed as lazy.

I really have no idea what you're talking about. Carter is pretty renowned for not being the hardest worker, which is why he never achieved the level he could. Being an outside shooter doesn't mean one is lazy and I never implied that. Carter changed his style of play, in part, due to laziness. Neither Allen or Miller changed their game.

He doesn't even need to "breakout" He just needs to raise his defense from mediocrity to average. I don't know if he'll do it but I'm certainly not going to completely blow off positive information because he's yet to improve his defense to date. I'm trying to approach this from a neutral perspective.

You're the one who mentioned the "breakout". And why, when people argue in Bargnani's favour, his defense goes from poor to mediocre? Mediocre would be a step up.

So you're implying that the new Raptors coach could be telling us lies? Why do you feel he would start off his career like that in Toronto? Casey has a very good reputation.

I'm implying that coaches say things in order to achieve results. That's it. I haven't seen a coach who hasn't said something that wasn't completely true, at some point.

I'm not going to get into complaints here. You can PM me if you see something wrong. I will say that you can post what you want as long as you abide by the rules.

It was a joke. Maybe I'm not taking this as seriously as others.

Right and maybe he will, maybe he won't. We'll find out in 2012 I'm sure.

Yes we will. Unless people start saying they need to see how they see how he plays beside Valanciunas....

[Tim W.]

Therein lies the frustration that I sense many people have when discussing Bargnani with you.

There have been threads about how Bargnani could improve to become a better player, or this thread talking about IF Bargnani DOES improve (ie: debate about candidates), but you always seem to take it back to "who cares, Bargnani should be traded" or "Amir is better than Bargnani" (ie: all the candidates are bad). People know your perspective on Bargnani quite well, that you would prefer him traded. BUT, if the thread is based on the assumption that Bargnani will be on the Raptors 2012 roster (like this one), it's frustrating when your input continues to be one-dimensional and falls outside that thread's frame of reference.

This thread is NOT discussing whether or not Bargnani should be traded. This thread is NOT discussing whether or not you think Bargnani will be traded. This thread is NOT discussing whether you think Bargnani can or will improve his defense/rebounding this season. The thread IS based on these two assumptions: 1) Bargnani will be a Raptor in 2012 2) Bargnani will improve defense/rebounding at least up to a respectable level under Casey. If you disagree with those two assumptions and therefore the entire premise of the thread, don't comment. We know you want Bargnani traded and doubt in his ability and/or desire to improve his defense/rebounding - but if you're not going to comment and add to the discussion within the definition of the thread, then there's no point reading/commenting on this particular thread.

It's like having a debate about whether black or white is the best color, and somebody comes along and posts a diatribe about why purple is the superior color and that anybody who continues the black/white debate is stupid because they are shades anyway, not colors. Who cares? For better or worse, the debate is whether black or white is the best color... respect the debate and stay on topic, or stay on the sideline.

Go back and look over the comments. I almost never change the topic of discussion. I wait until someone else does and then I say something. And I do that because I know what my reputation is. I didn't post on this thread at first for that very reason. In fact,, a while ago when there was a Bargnani appreciation thread, I didn't post on it at all. I didn't come in and start criticizing because I didn't feel the thread was the appropriate place to do that.

Like it or not, Bargnani is a lightening rod for discussion. I don't have to change the topic for it to change. I'm not the reason that Bargnani gets criticized.

And if are frustrated because you feel my input on Bargnani is one-dimensional, that's exactly how I feel watching him. Ironic, isn't it?

[Matt52]

I really have no idea what you're talking about. Carter is pretty renowned for not being the hardest worker, which is why he never achieved the level he could. Being an outside shooter doesn't mean one is lazy and I never implied that. Carter changed his style of play, in part, due to laziness. Neither Allen or Miller changed their game.



You're the one who mentioned the "breakout". And why, when people argue in Bargnani's favour, his defense goes from poor to mediocre? Mediocre would be a step up.



I'm implying that coaches say things in order to achieve results. That's it. I haven't seen a coach who hasn't said something that wasn't completely true, at some point.



It was a joke. Maybe I'm not taking this as seriously as others.



Yes we will. Unless people start saying they need to see how they see how he plays beside Valanciunas....

Shhhhhh.... this is April through draft talk. You're early.

Seriously though, I don't think that happens without noticeable and significant improvements in rebounding and defensive effort this season.

I truly believe, and obviously this is just my opinion, this is his last crack in Toronto.

[Puffer]

...We laud his scoring ability because we know he can shoot but the facts remain 21pts on 17 shots. Thats not highly efficient by any measurements so if there is an opportunity to get a better player or better assets for him I'd be all for it. ...

I've seen this mentioned before and am a little surprised by it. If he hit all 17 shots, and they were all 2 pointers he could have 34 points. So getting 21 points means he was shooting 61%. If they were all 3 point attempts, then he could have scored 51 points, so he would have been shooting 41%. If he mixed it up it would be someplace in between. For a big man who playe soutside as much as Bargs does, those are good percentages.

[GarbageTime]

I've seen this mentioned before and am a little surprised by it. If he hit all 17 shots, and they were all 2 pointers he could have 34 points. So getting 21 points means he was shooting 61%. If they were all 3 point attempts, then he could have scored 51 points, so he would have been shooting 41%. If he mixed it up it would be someplace in between. For a big man who playe soutside as much as Bargs does, those are good percentages.

but he shot 44.7%........ not 61%

Big men who took atleast 1 3pt a game

K.Love 47%
Dirk 51.7%
Odom 53%
J.Smith 47.7%
J.Green 44.9%
Diaw 49.2%
Charlie V 44.2%
Harrington 41.6%
Frye 43.2%

[The Rawth]

Tim.W have you EVER admitted you were wrong or accepted any points not in your favour?

Your always contribute really well to discussions but you word things in a way that doesnt often 'directly' state anything, and then later take credit for things youve never strongly stated.

What im trying to say is, you say things on either side of arguements and then when one side favours, you claim youve always said it, seemingly in a way of never being able to be wrong.
Sorry im terrible at wording things haha but its just irritates me
No offense, not trying to personally attack. But your posts are too smug lol