Andrea tweeted this a couple of days ago:
So, as this article points out, don't believe the hype:I want all my fans and all who have been reading the newspapers lately that I am not involved in any news written or attributed to me for the past month.
Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.
I would have a difficult time wearing anything on my person which promoted infidelity.
If Bargnani can just score 42 points per game, he'll be playing pretty good D.Chandler did take a moment to just talk hoops, and after playing with and against the best players in the world he tapped new (and former?) teammate Dirk Nowitzki as the best player in the NBA.
“I would go with Dirk. It’s funny, I tweeted about it and I’ve been catching the same flack about it. But I feel it’s proven by what he did last year, what he did to the Lakers, what he did to Oklahoma City, what he did in the Finals, throughout the whole playoffs Dirk just became a man possessed. He went to a whole other level offensively. People talk about what he did defensively, but he actually stepped it up better during the playoffs last year and became a better team defender. And my whole thing is if you outscore the guy defending you by 10 to 15 points, then you’re playing pretty good D.”
Why they did not target Tony Parker - a star, a champion, and a man experienced in this domain - is way beyond me.
I find it truly remarkable how some fans can still hold out hope that Bargnani "might" turn his career around. Is 5 years really too short a sample size? Really? Is watching paint dry a fun Sunday afternoon activity for these people with infinite patience?
I can already hear the excuses if Bargnani (to nobody's surprise) continues to struggle in ALL aspects of the game outside scoring:
- "It was only his 1st year under a new coach. Let's see how his 7th season turns out."
- "We didn't have Valanciunas on the roster. He'll be able to cover for Bargnani once he arrives."
- "Opposing defences gameplan around Bargnani, which explains his off numbers. It doesn't mean he's a bad player"
- "Blah, blah, blah"
Imagine Dion Phaneuf scoring 30 goals a season, but finishing with a league worst minus-35. He would be hockey's equivalent to Bargnani.
The other player is a good all around player and productive on both ends of the court, although he needs to be on a team with good offensive players. He doesn't need the ball to be effective, though, but he moves very well without it, has good hands and is a very efficient scorer when he does get the ball. He also hustles and doesn't need to be coddled or worried about. He is just as effective playing 20 minutes off the bench as he is playing 30 minutes starting.
Gee, which player would YOU want?
I think he will still become an above average offensive player, especially at the C position. He creates mismatches and often draws out big defenders from the lane, which would be exploited if the Raps had half decent wings and a PG who wasn't playing on wonky legs. Putting Bargnani alongside Val/Ed, who should become above average defenders, playing in a more effective team defense, will take much pressure off Bargnani defensively. I would rather have a PF who can score consistently and efficiently, with average D, than Amir who is good at everything but great at nothing. This kind of thinking is what makes people *hope* that Bargnani and Val/Ed can become the Raptors' version of Dirk & Chandler. I just dont' think Amir will ever be any better than he is now, which is backup PF.
I don't expect you to agree and am not trying to convince anybody. It's all just my opinion, based more on watching every game than worrying about stats in a vacuum.
And Valanciunas has shown to have many of the skills that Bargnani defenders tout as a reason to keep him. So if Valanciunas fils the role Bargnani apparently does, then why keep him? Especially with his contract and history of not improving on defense and rebounding?
As for Amir, RIGHT NOW he's more productive than Bargnani. And he's 2 years younger. And Amir doesn't NEED this fire lit under his ass like Bargnani apparently does. My question: Why on earth would you keep a guy who needs his ass constantly kicked in order to do what so many other players do naturally?
And in your research, did you discover how many of those teams had starting big men who were below average rebounders and defenders?
It seems to me that you're reaching a little, here. Both of them were/are 7 footers who have played mostly center. What difference does it make whether they were "considered" a true center? And is there really that much difference? Is Duncan a center or PF?
In the summer of 2010, there was still a question of what his potential could be because you could use the excuse (as many did) that he simply has never been given the chance. Last year he did and although he scored well, his overall season was a disappointment. And after 5 years in the league, the excuses are pretty much running out. I don't think anyone believes he's going to be an All-Star, anymore, so you're not going to give up nearly as much for him when you might believe that. And at 26, he's running out of time to look at his potential.
And although he's a good scorer, his obvious liabilities now make his performance value questionable with the salary he's making. I mean, do you want to be paying a big man $12 million (especially with the new CBA) when all he can do is score? Especially one that is not an elite scorer and needs to be protected defensively? Basically a bigger version of Jamaal Crawford?
Unfortunately, the longer you keep Bargnani the more his value will go down and the more difficult it will be to trade him. All those that want to keep him to "see if Casey can make him improve" don't seem to realize how big (and how bad) a gamble that is.
NBA salaries are tied to how valuable a player is perceived or is perceived will be. A big man doesn't need to score to get a 7 figure salary. Ask Joakim Noah. And ask teams how much they value Corey Maggette with his salary? He's one of the better scorer in the NBA, but his salary (which is less than Bargnani's) is considered bad).
Bargnani will probably always have a PLACE in the NBA because of his scoring, but that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be considered valuable.
1) that all teams in the league are striving to win a championship rather than simply to fill seats and turn a profit (or simply to MAKE the playoffs, rather than to build a team to advance deep into them), and will therefore value defence and rebounding over offensive ability.
2) that GMs are indeed intelligent people who are good at their jobs.
Number 2 is really the main point of contention, and I think you've forgotten just how awful the decisions some GMs make are when they're backed into a corner or decide they need to shake things up. Some recent examples off the top of my head:
1. Cleveland traded for Antawn Jamison and Mo Williams in order to chase a championship.
2. Boston gave away Kendrick Perkins for Jeff Green because they felt his offense and ability to guard wings would trump Perkins' interior D.
3. The Orlando Magic's recent moves involving Hedo and company.
4. Phoenix's moves not only with the Magic, but also acquiring Shaq.
5. Sacramento's deal trading down to get John Salmons and then trading away Omri Caspi.
And that's before we get into overpaying for big men in contract negotiations, which I would argue is a good indication not only of how overvalued serviceable bigs are in the NBA, but how often NBA GMs are fooled or tempted by a small sample size of overachievement. I fully agree with you that Bargnani only does one thing well and that the potential his trade value once hinged on is quickly being extinguished. But if this is so, then his trade value is all the more tied to the quality of his play in the short term, not only as a showcase of ability but also as a rekindling of interest in said potential. All it might take to raise Barg's value is a month or two of Casey lighting a fire under his ass before the trade deadline or of carefree play at the end of another season in the tank to convince some hapless GM trying to save his job that Bargs could be the offensive spark his team needs.
Value isn't necessarily a long term thing built up over time, nor is it solely a matter of perceived future potential. Just like in the free market, the price is set by what the buyer is willing to pay. And I'd argue there's plenty of evidence to suggest that NBA GMs are not the most rational of consumers, especially when it comes to big men.
And if Bargnani's value is hinged to his quality of play, then the Raptors really are in trouble if they keep him. I don't see him ever getting the same amount of shots per game and as much freedom on offense as he did last season. First of all, you know DeRozan is going to get more shots, which probably means less for Bargnani. Secondly, if Casey really is going to hold players accountable, then that means fewer minutes for Bargnani, who has never exactly earned the minutes he's been given since he was drafted.
There just seems to be far, far too many reasons to trade him now than to hang on to him.
That's just twisting my point to suit yours. I'm suggesting that you can always find a taker for what I maintain is a commodity that will continue to have value. It's not waiting for a GM to make a dumb move, it's finding one that has a perceived hole or need to fill, then offering to fill it when the time is right. And again, I maintain that a big that draws the opposing team's paint presence out to the 3 point line will always have value. My point about GMs being bad at their jobs was to illustrate that they often reach for solutions when under pressure.And I think banking on a GM making a stupid move isn't exactly the best management technique.
Then who's going to take the shots? Unless DeRozan ups his shots by 10 per game or more, there will still be plenty for Bargs.And if Bargnani's value is hinged to his quality of play, then the Raptors really are in trouble if they keep him. I don't see him ever getting the same amount of shots per game and as much freedom on offense as he did last season. First of all, you know DeRozan is going to get more shots, which probably means less for Bargnani. Secondly, if Casey really is going to hold players accountable, then that means fewer minutes for Bargnani, who has never exactly earned the minutes he's been given since he was drafted.
There just seems to be far, far too many reasons to trade him now than to hang on to him.
As for Casey giving Bargs fewer minutes, it might happen. But I'm arguing that Casey might light a fire under his ass and make him more tradeable. If that happens, why would he get less minutes?
Anyway, this is pointless, you're not going to convince me and I'm not going to convince you. Difference in philosophy, leaving it at that.
Somehow all this should once again be in the Bargnani thread. But you know what Lark? I hope you're right.
With all this extra time off I really really really really really hope Andrea comes back with a whole new attitude not only towards his own game, but for the better of the franchise as well. I never liked them drafting him in the first place, and I've still never warmed up to him in the slightest. Sure he can score, but as has been referenced around here countless times, he's not very efficient. I'm just hoping he somehow got word that this team is his for the taking, and that his given talents could easily outweigh those of pretty much any other player on our team considering the position he plays.(DeMar still has a ways to go along with Ed) Having said that, why am I to think he's going to magically turn it on, this being his sixth NBA season?
As for the OP, we need defense on this team going forward. Amir has shown he'll do it, we know Ed will definitely get much better than he already is, and big Val coming over next season could give us an excellent looking young front court for years to come. It's almost a guarantee we'll have a top 5-10 draft pick next season and with plenty of SF/PF's(some being combos) looking to come out next year(barring a new 20+ ruling) we could conceivably get a possible scorer in the mix to compliment DeRozan.
I guess the question would be, what would you rather go forward with as far as your three bigs are concerened. Or can the team afford to have four?
1. Bargs, Ed, Val
2. Ed, Amir, Val
3. Ed, Amir, Val, and Bargs
I'm going with #2. I think Bargs could fetch a decent draft choice or possible PG.
There are currently 19 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 19 guests)