Everything Bargnani: Grumble, Grumble, Grumble

[Tim W.]

20ppg scorers that space the floor for speedy guards to penetrate don't fill seats? I disagree, as do the legion of Bargs fans and apologists that linger among Raptors supporters. Casual fans greatly outnumber the diehards for any franchise.

Unless you're playing in Italy, I don't see a lot of fans clamouring to see a 7 foot jumpshooter. If that was the case, Dirk would have started at least once in the All-Star game, and he's miles better than Bargnani. How many other MVPs have never started in the All-Star game?

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.

I'm not twisting your point. Just highlighting the fallacy of your argument. Basically what you're saying is that there's always going to be GMs wanting Bargnani because many of them make bad decisions. Besides, I've never said that Bargnani will become impossible to trade. There's no such thing, as we've learned with both Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis being traded. But his trade value will decline, so you'll get less value back for him, and possibly have to take back a bad contract in return. Again, that's not good management. Especially not when you're trying to build a young team.

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.

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.

Last season, Bargnani took the 9th most shots in the entire league and only 30 players played more minutes per game than he did. If Casey is really going to hold Bargnani accountable, then unless a miracle happens, Bargnani's minutes will be affected. Besides, let's take a look at the minutes available. For the center and PF position, you've got 96 mpg. You've got Ed Davis, who'll probably play close to 30 mpg this season (after playing 25 last year), and Amir Johnson, who'll play, at least, the 25 mpg he played last season. Then there's Alibi, who will get some burn this year from what we're to believe, so there's another 10-15 mpg.

Now, I'm not astro-physicist, but that seems to add up to about 65-70 mpg, which leaves just 22-27 minutes left. Now I don't think Bargnani's only going to play 27 mpg, so he'll obviously take a few minutes from someone, but he's not going to be playing 35 mpg again this season. And that doesn't even take into account the fact that Colangelo might sign a veteran center since Bargnani apparently isn't a center anymore, er, ever. So without the minutes he got last year, he's simply not going to get the same amount of shots.

Speaking of the amount of shots, you're assuming that other players simply can't take on one or two more shots. DeRozan will no doubt take more shots, as will Davis and Amir, and you're forgetting that Kleiza will return this season and will probably take at least 10 spg if healthy (which he did before he got injured. Barbosa also was injured and can be counted on to take plenty of shots when healthy. The whole "you need to get scoring from somewhere" argument never works because finding players to take shots is probably the least difficult thing in the NBA.

Let's just take a closer look at that for a moment. Last year, the Raptors attempted 82 shots per game, yet Bargnani, DeRozan, Barbosa, Kleiza, Bayless, Calderon, Amir, James Johnson and Ed Davis together took 90.6 shots per game. And that doesn't even include the players who aren't with the team anymore like Sonny Weems and Reggie Evans. So just the returning players took 8 more shots per game than the entire Raptors team did. Obviously the reason is because Kleiza missed most of the year to injury, Barbosa and Davis missed at least a month. In fact, it's easier to name the players on the roster who DIDN'T miss significant time to injury.

And that's one big reason why Bargnani was able to take 17 shots per game. And don't forget that DeRozan averaged 16.7 shots after the All-Star break, more than two over his seasonal average.

COULD Bargnani equal or increase his scoring average over last season? Sure. Is it much more likely his scoring will actually decrease to below the magical 20 ppg number? Absolutely. And you can't honestly tell me that his trade value will not decrease if and when that happens.

[GarbageTime]

20ppg scorers that space the floor for speedy guards to penetrate don't fill seats? I disagree, as do the legion of Bargs fans and apologists that linger among Raptors supporters. Casual fans greatly outnumber the diehards for any franchise.

http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance/_/year/2011

unless I'm mistaken... last season was the Raps worst season for average attendance in the last decade (only goes back 10 years). So apparently no, 20ppg scorers that space the floor for others, but can't rebound and help lead to the worst team defense in the NBA for 2 consecutive years does not fill seats.

And casual fans do greatly outnumber the diehards... and they want to watch something that is either exciting and/or leads to winning.

[Lark Benson]

Unless you're playing in Italy, I don't see a lot of fans clamouring to see a 7 foot jumpshooter. If that was the case, Dirk would have started at least once in the All-Star game, and he's miles better than Bargnani. How many other MVPs have never started in the All-Star game?

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Amare Stoudemire
Carmello Anthony
Kevin Durant

Those are the reasons why Dirk hasn't started. The F spots on the west team are the most competitive of the all-star spots. If Dirk played in the East, he would have started multiple times. All-star game voting is hardly an indication of what fans will pay to see or will support in their local franchise.

I'm not twisting your point. Just highlighting the fallacy of your argument. Basically what you're saying is that there's always going to be GMs wanting Bargnani because many of them make bad decisions. Besides, I've never said that Bargnani will become impossible to trade. There's no such thing, as we've learned with both Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis being traded. But his trade value will decline, so you'll get less value back for him, and possibly have to take back a bad contract in return. Again, that's not good management. Especially not when you're trying to build a young team.

No, you're reading what you want to see, highlighting one part of my argument while ignoring it's place within the whole. Again, my point isn't that you'd be waiting for a GM to make a mistake, it's that you'd be waiting for the right time to sell high on a commodity that I continue to maintain has more value to NBA GMs than it does to you as a fan. That GMs make mistakes is a consequence of the pressures they face and to which NBA fans sitting in their chairs at home are immune. In the context of keeping Bargnani on the team for one more season (which, again, I probably mistakenly assumed would be 11/12 and not 12/13), that means seeing if a stretch of good play either before the trade deadline or end of the season would increase his value enough to allow for a better deal. We both agree that Bargnani isn't worth much, and that he certainly isn't likely to fetch a quality prospect or draft pick in return unless it's bundled with a bad contract. It's simply my opinion that waiting for the right time to strike might allow for a return such as a quality prospect or pick, and that the risk involved would outweigh the chance that his trade value may drop incrementally from another season of typical Bargnani production. I maintain that Bargnani's trade value is based almost solely on his production at this point and therefore that the idea of his value dropping considerably due his potential not being realized is overstated.

Last season, Bargnani took the 9th most shots in the entire league and only 30 players played more minutes per game than he did. If Casey is really going to hold Bargnani accountable, then unless a miracle happens, Bargnani's minutes will be affected. Besides, let's take a look at the minutes available. For the center and PF position, you've got 96 mpg. You've got Ed Davis, who'll probably play close to 30 mpg this season (after playing 25 last year), and Amir Johnson, who'll play, at least, the 25 mpg he played last season. Then there's Alibi, who will get some burn this year from what we're to believe, so there's another 10-15 mpg.

I'm just quoting this to stand in for the entire remaining argument, to save space.

Now first off, I'm not an astrophysicist either, but your math is off. You correctly state that there are 96 minutes available then go on to account for 92 of them (65+27 or 70+22). But my real problem is that you seem to think that those minutes can be allocated without regard to matchups or pairings. Now let me say that I'm under the assumption, and I would argue that this entire thread is as well, that we're looking at the team without BC adding another big, so you can't suddenly toss that in. And without another big, playing Johnson and Davis together is not exactly ideal, especially offensively. If we assume for example that Bargnani will play most of his minutes with Calderon or Bayless, DeRozan, Johnson and one of Davis and Johnson, Bargnani is still (sadly) the first option on offense unless DeMar's game has made huge strides.

As to the idea that more shots will be taken by others on the team, what basis is there for this? If Casey is indeed going to hold players accountable, then wouldn't it follow that role players taking more shots, presumably out of the flow of the offense because they're role players, would result in their getting fewer opportunities to take those shots? Wouldn't the majority of the shots continue to be funnelled to the players that are (for better or worse) the best scorers on the team? You really think that someone like Kleiza, coming off an injury and without the opportunity to play the 4, is going to continue jacking up 3s at a 300% clip before getting benched? Are these same Raptors who were so injury plagued last season magically going to last the entire season without injury during this hypothetical season? As you correctly stated, getting players to take shots in the NBA is not exactly difficult, but there are a finite number of shots in any single game and the distribution of those shots is far more significant than the totals. And unless the Raptors make a point of spreading the ball around in the name of development over wins, then why would the distribution change much? I would add that in my scenario of keeping Bargnani in order to showcase him, the idea of reducing his shots is completely counter-intuitive.

Furthermore, my argument for keeping Bargs in the short-term is based on the idea (which I stated in my earlier posts) that Bargs could increase his value not only by scoring more, but also alternatively scoring more efficiently (ie taking fewer but better shots) or by having some of the bad defender stigma neutralized by the Raps being a better defensive team under Casey, whether with Bargnani improving in that area or in spite of him not. I understand that you're arguing against my point that the 'shots have to come from somewhere', which admittedly is a crude point that's ripe for dissecting. But again you've ignored the context of my total argument in order to pick at that single point.

Now lastly, to the idea that his value will decrease if his average slides below 20ppg. Disagree completely. First off it seems to assume that a team would be trading for him as a first option on offence, which I find unlikely at best. You and I agree that he is not that valuable and I think it's reasonable to assume NBA GMs would as well, which makes the 20ppg number completely arbitrary and values scoring totals over efficiency. I stated in a previous post that while scoring averages may account for value in salary, the market value (ie trade value) for a player is what another GM is willing to exchange for them. If Bargnani has proven he can score 20ppg in the season previous but that number then drops with fewer shots (again, your assumption, not mine), then why would a GM shy away from trading for Bargnani if his team can offer that same number of shots? Presumably they are trading for Bargnani either to allow him the freedom to put up a lot of shots, or they are envisioning him playing a reduced role and trading for his skillset and therefore reducing his shots per game, in which case it would be completely unreasonable to assume that he could maintain such an average, making 20ppg an arbitrary and irrelevant number.

Anyway, I really am done with this now. I've wasted waaaaaay to much time on this and remembered why I should stay away from arguing on the internet in the first place.

[Lark Benson]

no? then how can you possibly make any statement regarding "filling seats"? Or would you rather just use unfalsifiable information to 'prove' your point?

As for the figures... I related them only to previous Raps attendance not league wide so they are actually relative. Obviously different markets will have different abilities to sell tickets or put butts in the seats for a variety of reasons, thats why comparing Toronto's ticket sales to previous Toronto ticket sales (as opposed to Cleveland or Washington) makes sense. And remember YOU were the one who said fans came out to watch Bargani, and I said nothing about Demar. The actual information proves that what you said was untrue. In fact if it proves anything, its the exact opposite of what you stated. (oh and just off hand the 'recession' didn't technically exist last season (although I'm not going to get into a debate regarding the definition of a recession), it ended prior to that .... even if you don't agree with that statement, ticket sales were greater in the 2008/09 and 09/10 season when the 'recession' was worse.... so no that excuse doesn't fly either)

Ofcourse these are statistics and as they never correspond with what Bargnani fans THINK is or should be happening, they must ofcourse be wrong.

I didn't think I had to state it, but you honestly think that attendance being down relative to previous years was not an obvious consequence of losing Bosh and the expectations that the team was going to suck (which it did)?

Relating the attendance figures to other teams was to show that despite an obvious letdown in the quality of the team and difficult economic choices to be made, fans continued to attend games, which I think does indeed prove my point. Fans paid to see the team during a recession because they loved to see them play; they made a choice with their money. Fewer of them continued to pay to watch the team play post-Bosh, but my point is that the drop is not as precipitous as it should have been given the awful quality of play, because it should have been an obvious choice to save the money and not attend games if the fans didn't care.

My point that attendance figures don't matter was in relation specifically to your point that attendance was down relative to previous years. They do matter, just not in the context you provided. My mistake for not stating that more clearly.

And as for the idea that the recession 'ended' at a certain time, you clearly don't understand economics if you think that the lingering effects on personal wealth and savings don't affect purchasing decisions over longer periods than individual years. You don't suddenly wake up one more morning, turn on the news, hear the the recession has 'ended' and go out to spend the money you lost over the last few years.

And lastly, don't lump me in with Bargnani supporters. I'm not one, which I've stated in my posts. Just because I'm defending his trade value doesn't mean I like him as a player.

[Tim W.]

Tim Duncan
Kevin Garnett
Amare Stoudemire
Carmello Anthony
Kevin Durant

Those are the reasons why Dirk hasn't started. The F spots on the west team are the most competitive of the all-star spots. If Dirk played in the East, he would have started multiple times. All-star game voting is hardly an indication of what fans will pay to see or will support in their local franchise.

And those guys were more popular, and that's the point. Amare, Carmelo and Durant made it ahead of Dirk despite being Dirk being a better player. And while I have a lot of problems with All-Star voting, what it is a good indication of is the popularity of a player.

Besides, are you really trying to tell me that Bargnani would bring fans in? Really? A guy who probably will never make an All-Star team?

And to answer RapthoseLeafs comment, Bargnani will certainly bring in a few Italian fans, but he's certainly not enough of a draw to make enough of a difference in the box office. Very few people are going to buy season tickets based on whether or not Bargnani is on the team.

I'm just quoting this to stand in for the entire remaining argument, to save space.

Likewise.

Now one of the biggest differences we seem to have regarding Bargnani is what his trade value is based on. But in actuality, we see more eye to eye than you think. Now, you feel his trade value is based mostly on his productivity rather than potential, yet you want to keep him longer because you feel there's a good chance that Casey will be able to get more out of Bargnani. Isn't that exactly what Bargnani defenders have been saying, and isn't that saying that is only Bargnani had the right coach and the right system, he'd be more valuable?

Besides, if his trade value is based on his productivity, then why would you pay a guy $11 million dollars for basically something that Ryan Anderson or Matt Bonner can do for the fraction of the price. Now, obviously those guys don't have the skills that Bargnani does, but you said yourself that no one would trade for him to become their first or second option, but simply as a big who can spread the floor. Hell, at least Anderson and Bonner aren't liabilities half the time their on the floor. And Ryan Anderson actually had a higher PER than Bargnani.

Now, it's my contention that Bargnani's trade value peaked in the summer of 2010. Back then, you could have argued that he simply hadn't been given a chance to shine (although I would have argued against that) or some of the other many arguments his defenders used that summer. It wasn't a rare opinion that he might finally be able to measure up to the potential he apparently had. And then he was given the chance and, while he certainly was able to score at a good rate, his season was considered by most to be a disappointment, mostly due to his lack of development on defense and on the boards.

Now we've got one more excuse. That Bargnani simply needs a good defensive coach to kick his butt. Not nearly as many people are drinking the Kool-Aid on this one, but there are enough to show that people still believe he has the potential to be a better player. Maybe not great, but better. Even you.

The problem with that is, what happens if he DOESN'T improve? What happens to his trade value, then? You are right that GMs tend to gamble, but the more excuses you cross of the list for Bargnani, the less likely a GM is going to want to gamble on a guy who arguably doesn't even have a positive effect when he's on the floor. If you've got an asset that probably won't go up in value much, if at all, but has a better chance of going down, then the smart thing to do is trade that asset for something else.

As for the whole shots per game argument, obviously my argument isn't based on any science, but the fact of the matter is that Bargnani took more shots per game last year than Bosh did at any time in his career. And a lot of that was due to the fact that 2 of the 3 players who were expected to help share the scoring burden missed significant time to injury. While injuries happen, it's not likely that literally half of your expected top scorers are going to miss nearly an entire season between them. In the 39 games that Kleiza did play, most of those injured, apparently, his still took 10 shots per game.

Lastly, this argument that you can't have a front court of Valanciunas, Davis and Amir because none of them are great scorers, until Chris Bosh came along, do you know how much the next highest scoring Raptor big man scored? 14.5 ppg. It was Antonio Davis.

I think a front line that all play defense, rebound and score efficiently trumps a front line that can score, but can't rebound or play consistent defense.

Anyway, I really am done with this now. I've wasted waaaaaay to much time on this and remembered why I should stay away from arguing on the internet in the first place.

I felt that this was an intelligent and entertaining discussion, which seems to be a rarity on the internet. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.

[Lark Benson]

And those guys were more popular, and that's the point. Amare, Carmelo and Durant made it ahead of Dirk despite being Dirk being a better player. And while I have a lot of problems with All-Star voting, what it is a good indication of is the popularity of a player.

Besides, are you really trying to tell me that Bargnani would bring fans in? Really? A guy who probably will never make an All-Star team?

And to answer RapthoseLeafs comment, Bargnani will certainly bring in a few Italian fans, but he's certainly not enough of a draw to make enough of a difference in the box office. Very few people are going to buy season tickets based on whether or not Bargnani is on the team.

It's a matter of degrees. Does the fact that Dirk was never voted in as a starter mean that he isn't popular? Of course not, that's absurd. He's simply not as popular as the uber-athletes that people vote to watch in the glorified pick-up game that is the all-star game (and Tim Duncan, who has a vice grip on one F spot). A quick look at the attendance figures form the last few years shows that Dallas consistently places in the top 10 and more often than not in the top 5 in attendance. They win a lot of games, and Dirk has a ton of supporters.

Let me put it another way. Let's say for argument's sake that after Bosh was traded, Bargs was shipped to NO for Emeka Okafor. These two played roughly the same number of minutes and Okafor produced about 4 more wins going by win shares. So again, for argument's sake only, let's give the Raps 22 wins; still pretty dismal, and not enough to pack the building by any means.

More important is how the team would have looked on the court. With Okafor at the 5 playing alongside Johnson and Davis at the 4, the paint would have been packed tight. None of those guys have much of a post game, so we can assume most of the scoring would have been left to the guards/wings. The problem is, most of them don't shoot very well from deep. Calderon and Bayless are average from deep, and Barbosa is passable, but the rest of the team struggles from the outside. On top of that, Barbosa, Bayless and DeRozan all get a lot of their points from driving, which is far more difficult when the paint is packed as defenders sag. Plus there's the reduction in open looks from reduced the drive and kick game. All in all, the offense would have been ugly. The team may have won a few more games on account of better defence and rebounding, but they would have been a far less entertaining team to watch for the average fan. So, I would expect attendance to have declined relative to keeping Bargnani.

Now conversely, let's suppose they traded Bargnani for Monta Ellis, another one dimensional scorer. The team would have been similarly dismal, but arguably more entertaining because Ellis is a lot of fun to watch. So I would expect attendance to have risen slightly.

My point is that it's all relative. Obviously Bargs isn't going to bring in fans like a superstar, but to suggest that he doesn't help to fill seats is, I think, a stretch. He helps make the Raps an entertaining team (if, ultlimately, a bad one). A good example of this effect is the Warriors, who field a bad yet entertaining team and do very well in attendance (though they have a rabid fan base, so it's tough to deduce how much of a correlation exists there). I'm not foolish enough to suggest that Bargs brings fans in solely because they like to watch him play; as I've stated multiple times now, there are a very few players in the league who can make that claim and who sell season tickets through their presence alone. But I think the combination of his fans and the fans drawn to the team because he helps enable an entertaining style of play certainly has value.

Now one of the biggest differences we seem to have regarding Bargnani is what his trade value is based on. But in actuality, we see more eye to eye than you think. Now, you feel his trade value is based mostly on his productivity rather than potential, yet you want to keep him longer because you feel there's a good chance that Casey will be able to get more out of Bargnani. Isn't that exactly what Bargnani defenders have been saying, and isn't that saying that is only Bargnani had the right coach and the right system, he'd be more valuable?

This is where you've misquoted me a bit. I never stated that Bargnani would play better under Casey on the defensive end, I said that the team might play better defence around him (and likely in spite of him), lending credibility to the idea that he might just need to be in the right system. I don't personally think Casey will make much of a difference to the way Bargs plays, but a GM with a strong defensive team and a lack of scoring may be more willing to take a chance on Bargs if it's shown that the Raps can win games despite his poor play on that end.

A good example of this is the Jeff Green / Kendrick Perkins trade that I mentioned earlier. Danny Ainge decided to trade away a strength in order to shore up a perceived weakness in an effort to ensure that the Celtics had someone to guard LeBron. That failed miserably, but GMs take these risks all the time because of the various pressures of having to appease owners, fans, closing windows, etc. So if Casey moves the Raps from the cellar defensively to, say, 18-20th, GMs may decide that Bargnani is a liability that can be hidden rather than a defensive leper.

Besides, if his trade value is based on his productivity, then why would you pay a guy $11 million dollars for basically something that Ryan Anderson or Matt Bonner can do for the fraction of the price. Now, obviously those guys don't have the skills that Bargnani does, but you said yourself that no one would trade for him to become their first or second option, but simply as a big who can spread the floor. Hell, at least Anderson and Bonner aren't liabilities half the time their on the floor. And Ryan Anderson actually had a higher PER than Bargnani.

As you point out, those are poor comparisons in my opinion. Ryan Anderson is still on his rookie deal and Matt Bonner is, well, Matt Bonner. How about Rashard Lewis, who is more productive than Bargnani, and paid accordingly (though obviously waaaay more than he should be). It's tough to find direct comparisons here because there aren't a lot of players with Bargnani's skillset, so maybe it's easier to look at it this way: is 9-12 million for a 3rd option really so uncommon (11 is his 13/14 salary)? It might be in the new CBA, that'll depend on any salary rollbacks and what the capped max contracts are worth, but it certainly hasn't been in this past CBA.

More importantly, if 9-12 million is too much for a 3rd option under the new CBA, how are you going to trade Bargnani anyway? Who's going to take him at that price unless they think he can be a valuable asset? We both agree that no GM could really think that his current play merits it, nor does his waning potential, so who would take him unless that opinion changes, and what kind of asset would you get in return?

Now, it's my contention that Bargnani's trade value peaked in the summer of 2010. Back then, you could have argued that he simply hadn't been given a chance to shine (although I would have argued against that) or some of the other many arguments his defenders used that summer. It wasn't a rare opinion that he might finally be able to measure up to the potential he apparently had. And then he was given the chance and, while he certainly was able to score at a good rate, his season was considered by most to be a disappointment, mostly due to his lack of development on defense and on the boards.

Now we've got one more excuse. That Bargnani simply needs a good defensive coach to kick his butt. Not nearly as many people are drinking the Kool-Aid on this one, but there are enough to show that people still believe he has the potential to be a better player. Maybe not great, but better. Even you.

The problem with that is, what happens if he DOESN'T improve? What happens to his trade value, then? You are right that GMs tend to gamble, but the more excuses you cross of the list for Bargnani, the less likely a GM is going to want to gamble on a guy who arguably doesn't even have a positive effect when he's on the floor. If you've got an asset that probably won't go up in value much, if at all, but has a better chance of going down, then the smart thing to do is trade that asset for something else.

Well I addressed the idea above that Casey will kick him in the butt. I don't really think it'll happen. It might, he might have a Josh Smith of 09/10 kind of awakening, but I agree that the odds are slim. I think the better chance is that he'll find a way to hide Bargnani and lend credence to the idea that he can be hidden if he's surrounded by good defensive players and a good defensive coach. Because although the Raps may have such a coach for whenever the next season is, they certainly won't have upgraded their personnel much on that side of the ball.

Where I think we disagree is how much his value will go down with a more-of-the-same season. I think there's more to be gained than lost by waiting to see because a) I don't think that trading Bargs will return the kind of prospect/pick that I think the Raps should be searching for and b) I don't think his value can go down much if it turns out he can't be taught defence or hidden. I think at best right now you could swap him for, say, a Monta Ellis type player (ie a smiliarly one dimensional player that doesn't help you win games), but that's just trading the problem from one position to another and I'd argue that a big that can shoot is easier to move than a guard. Don't get me wrong, if BC could get a solid pick in this year's draft or a even a guy like Nic Batum for him, I'd say do it in a heartbeat. But like you, I think that the value of his potential is all but gone. That's why I'm interested to see if it can be rekindled by a stretch of good play or by the Raps improving defensively. I just don't think his trade value can fall as far as you do (since I think it has essentially levelled off), so I'm more open to the gamble. Just a difference in styles really.

As for the whole shots per game argument, obviously my argument isn't based on any science, but the fact of the matter is that Bargnani took more shots per game last year than Bosh did at any time in his career. And a lot of that was due to the fact that 2 of the 3 players who were expected to help share the scoring burden missed significant time to injury. While injuries happen, it's not likely that literally half of your expected top scorers are going to miss nearly an entire season between them. In the 39 games that Kleiza did play, most of those injured, apparently, his still took 10 shots per game.

Sure, his shots per game may drop. But Kleiza is coming off of a serious injury so who knows how he'll play, or how many minutes. Sonny Weems and his 9 shots per game are gone, and Barbosa is likely to be traded. Looking at the scorers on the team you've got Bargs, DeRozan, Bayless, Barbosa, and that's about it. Everyone else plays through those guys, and we all know what a black hole Bargs is. So if the offence is designed to run through Bayless (assuming here that he's starting), DeRozan and Bargs, then Bargs will probably see the ball a lot; like I mentioned in an earlier post, he's still sadly the 1st or 2nd option on offence. And he'll probably jack up shots. Just as likely is that his total shots may decline a bit but his efficiency might increase, resulting in a healthy scoring average regardless. So his PPG may drop, but they're not going to fall off a cliff to something like 16ish, and certainly not enough to convince anyone that he can't be a 3rd option / floor spacer, which we discussed earlier. So what's the harm? I just don't see his value dropping that much if his scoring average declines a bit. [/QUOTE]

Lastly, this argument that you can't have a front court of Valanciunas, Davis and Amir because none of them are great scorers, until Chris Bosh came along, do you know how much the next highest scoring Raptor big man scored? 14.5 ppg. It was Antonio Davis.

I think a front line that all play defense, rebound and score efficiently trumps a front line that can score, but can't rebound or play consistent defense.

I didn't say you can't have it, just that it makes the offence more difficult if defenders can sag because only Amir can consistently step out beyond 10-15 feet. Especially when your team lacks shooters at the wings to compensate. I don't see any Vince Carters on the current team, nobody that can create something out of nothing with ease (let alone any MoPetes, Donyell Marshalls, Lamond Murrays, Tracey Murrays, Dell Currys, etc - all of whom had better 3pt percentages while with the Raps than any Raptors last year aside from Calderon (and Peja for the brief period he was here). Like I said with the Okafor example above, bigs that can't space the floor makes for some ugly and inefficient basketball (nobody likes watching long 2s clang off the rim all game).

I felt that this was an intelligent and entertaining discussion, which seems to be a rarity on the internet. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way.

I didn't mean it that way - I get sucked into these discussions (as you can tell) and typically ignore other things that I should be doing instead (hence the wasting time comment). Luckilly (sort of) this flu just won't die so I'm still off work, sitting in front of my computer with lots of time to kill.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

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.

I admit im one of the Raptors fans (who you find remarkable) who think Bargnani "might" improve. The difference is, im also open to the fact the he "might not". There's a possibility he "might" improve, no matter how dire you describe it (grim, slight, next to nothing, 1 in a million) but the fact of the matter is, "might" is still a possibility.

Well, excuses go both ways.
If i may, i would also like to use these excuses IF Bargnani does improve:
-well, he got a new coach, and a defensive one at that, thats why he improved
-well, JV is a defensive center, and worked well with Bargnani, thats why he improved
-well, the defense focused on Demar and JV, thats why his numbers went up.

See? Im pretty sure fans like you will be using pretty much the same excuses IF Bargnani does improve. The guy is in a no-win situation.

[Nilanka]

I admit im one of the Raptors fans (who you find remarkable) who think Bargnani "might" improve. The difference is, im also open to the fact the he "might not". There's a possibility he "might" improve, no matter how dire you describe it (grim, slight, next to nothing, 1 in a million) but the fact of the matter is, "might" is still a possibility.

Well, excuses go both ways.
If i may, i would also like to use these excuses IF Bargnani does improve:
-well, he got a new coach, and a defensive one at that, thats why he improved
-well, JV is a defensive center, and worked well with Bargnani, thats why he improved
-well, the defense focused on Demar and JV, thats why his numbers went up.

See? Im pretty sure fans like you will be using pretty much the same excuses IF Bargnani does improve. The guy is in a no-win situation.

I agree that both sides of the argument are possibilities, but in my opinion, the odds of improvement are unlikely, based on the best indicator of success (i.e. historical evidence).

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

I agree that both sides of the argument are possibilities, but in my opinion, the odds of improvement are unlikely, based on the best indicator of success (i.e. historical evidence).

oh yeah, i agree too, i even used 4 adjectives/phrases to describe how little the chance is. but the point is, there's still a chance and thats what im sticking to, hehehe. me and tim w. have gone over this sooo many times. and basically what it boiled down to, was a difference in opinion.

there is historical evidence, but unless you have a crystal ball, only then you can be sure.

[Nilanka]

oh yeah, i agree too, i even used 4 adjectives/phrases to describe how little the chance is. but the point is, there's still a chance and thats what im sticking to, hehehe.

One could make the argument that Bargnani's odds of improving would never truly be zero. The possibility would always exist on some level, no matter what year of his contract we're discussing. But it's management's responsibility to play the percentages and make roster moves based on strong statistical correlations (while fully acknowledging that they are correlations, and not facts).

The way I see it, we can simplify the discussion into 2 negative outcomes (from a Raptor fan's perspective):

1. Bargnani is traded, and improves in his new surroundings.
OR
2. Bargnani is retained, and his game regresses, thus making the final 4 years of his contract difficult to trade.

I can live with #1, but definitely not #2.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

One could make the argument that Bargnani's odds of improving would never truly be zero. The possibility would always exist on some level, no matter what year of his contract we're discussing. But it's management's responsibility to play the percentages and make roster moves based on strong statistical correlations (while fully acknowledging that they are correlations, and not facts).

The way I see it, we can simplify the discussion into 2 negative outcomes (from a Raptor fan's perspective):

1. Bargnani is traded, and improves in his new surroundings.
OR
2. Bargnani is retained, and his game regresses, thus making the final 4 years of his contract difficult to trade.

I can live with #1, but definitely not #2.

I could not agree more. And ive always, always lobbied for Bargnani to be traded. That is the only way, IMO.

BUT, what i want and what i think are unfortunately 2 different things. I dont think Bargnani will be traded, at least not this season (if there is one) and even the next. I could be wrong, but i just dont see any signs. BC calling him out, IMO, is him clinging to the fact that Bargnani is his franchise player and wants him to realize that he is that and should do his best to improve in the areas he is lacking. Otherwise, why bother calling him out? just trade him if they really wanted him out. The same thing that Phil did to Kobe.

All my comments on Bargnani have been based on the idea of the Raptors retaining him.

[Tim W.]

BUT, what i want and what i think are unfortunately 2 different things. I dont think Bargnani will be traded, at least not this season (if there is one) and even the next. I could be wrong, but i just dont see any signs. BC calling him out, IMO, is him clinging to the fact that Bargnani is his franchise player and wants him to realize that he is that and should do his best to improve in the areas he is lacking. Otherwise, why bother calling him out? just trade him if they really wanted him out. The same thing that Phil did to Kobe.

I see things differently (not surprisingly). I've seen a lot of signs that Colangelo is much more willing to trade Bargnani. Up until late last season, there have NEVER been any trade rumours regarding Bargnani before. None. Then there was talk of him being traded to New York and Leo Rautins mentions the rumour, giving some credence to it. Then Matt and Jack discuss the idea of trading him over the summer (something that the lockout prevented). Keep in mind that Leo, Matt and Jack are all Raptor employees and have mostly been silent in their criticism of Bargnani. So what exactly changed?

Well, Colangelo changed his official tune on Bargnani after the season, referring to him, for the first time ever, as an asset and seemed somewhat exasperated by the lack of progress in his game. Could he simply have been calling him out, a la Kobe, as you mention? Possibly, but adding the one out, the fact that he's been "playing out of position" all this time makes me think, when combined with the rumour talk, that Colangelo is doing a few things. The first is to fan the trade rumours hoping to actually get some legitimate offers. Secondly, by giving Bargnani the excuse he's been playing out of position, he gives other GMs a reason to offer more for him. If he only played beside a defensive center, he'd be better. Lastly, he's preparing Raptor fans for the possibility Bargnani will be traded.

Look at it this way. The Raptors simply don't need him anymore. If he really is a PF, well the team already has two young PFs under contract who both have more two way potential than Bargnani. And with the drafting of Valanciunas, SOMEONE is going to have to go to make room. Amir is probably the least likely candidate to be moved, in my opinion, because of his reasonable contract and ability to be productive no matter what role he plays. So that means it's between Bargnani and Davis. Two things working against Bargnani are his contract and his lack of overall development. Davis is certainly worth more on the open market, but rookie contracts are notoriously difficult to trade and get equal value back. And Davis' potential makes him more of a danger to trade away. Who are you most likely to get bitten later on for trading? Bargnani or Davis? Bargnani, for all his offensive talent, even Colangelo has come to realize will never be the player he hoped. After only an incomplete rookie season, though, Davis showed excellent defensive potential and even started to show some decent offensive potential.

I think it's ridiculous for those to say that Colangelo will "never" trade Bargnani. He certainly doesn't have a history of sitting on his mistakes, so there's no reason to think he'll start now.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

I see things differently (not surprisingly). I've seen a lot of signs that Colangelo is much more willing to trade Bargnani. Up until late last season, there have NEVER been any trade rumours regarding Bargnani before. None. Then there was talk of him being traded to New York and Leo Rautins mentions the rumour, giving some credence to it. Then Matt and Jack discuss the idea of trading him over the summer (something that the lockout prevented). Keep in mind that Leo, Matt and Jack are all Raptor employees and have mostly been silent in their criticism of Bargnani. So what exactly changed?

Actually, there was a very rampant rumor that the Raptors were in discussions with the Mavs that involved Bargnani and Josh Howard. I think this was back in 2009 - http://dimemag.com/2009/01/nba-trade...drea-bargnani/.
I think there were a couple of other sites that reported it but i figured Dime is one of the more reputable ones.
I cant comment on that coz i didnt hear Leo, Matt or Jack talk about Bargnani and him being traded, i tried to google it but couldnt come up with anything. I wont be surprised though if they did talk about it.

Well, Colangelo changed his official tune on Bargnani after the season, referring to him, for the first time ever, as an asset and seemed somewhat exasperated by the lack of progress in his game. Could he simply have been calling him out, a la Kobe, as you mention? Possibly, but adding the one out, the fact that he's been "playing out of position" all this time makes me think, when combined with the rumour talk, that Colangelo is doing a few things. The first is to fan the trade rumours hoping to actually get some legitimate offers. Secondly, by giving Bargnani the excuse he's been playing out of position, he gives other GMs a reason to offer more for him. If he only played beside a defensive center, he'd be better. Lastly, he's preparing Raptor fans for the possibility Bargnani will be traded.

I dont think BC said anything about the lack of progress in his game, he specifically pointed out his rebounding and help defense when he mentioned the negatives. But he clearly pointed out how Bargnani improved his scoring, and the mismatches he creates.
I think its all based on interpretation. By saying Bargnani is playing out of position, he could also be saying my other 2 PFs are available so make me an offer, and im willing to trade. I agree that these are legit signs, but Colangelo hasnt really moved forward on any of these comments. These are pretty much your own interpretations of what possibly could come off his comments. On the other hand, he's already acted on some pro-Bargnani comments that he made post-season. He said they probably need a defensive center to pair Bargnani with, he drafts a defensive center in JV. And then he goes out and gets a legit defensive coach who has worked with a jump-shooting european big. Again, these moves can be open to interpretation, but IMO, they have a lot to do with Bargnani's deficiencies more than anything else. The beauty of these is if it doesnt work for Bargnani, its still a win-win situation for BC because he has a potentially good big in JV and a potentially solid coach in Casey. But at least in his conscience he can say he tried to make it work for Bargnani.

Look at it this way. The Raptors simply don't need him anymore. If he really is a PF, well the team already has two young PFs under contract who both have more two way potential than Bargnani. And with the drafting of Valanciunas, SOMEONE is going to have to go to make room. Amir is probably the least likely candidate to be moved, in my opinion, because of his reasonable contract and ability to be productive no matter what role he plays. So that means it's between Bargnani and Davis. Two things working against Bargnani are his contract and his lack of overall development. Davis is certainly worth more on the open market, but rookie contracts are notoriously difficult to trade and get equal value back. And Davis' potential makes him more of a danger to trade away. Who are you most likely to get bitten later on for trading? Bargnani or Davis? Bargnani, for all his offensive talent, even Colangelo has come to realize will never be the player he hoped. After only an incomplete rookie season, though, Davis showed excellent defensive potential and even started to show some decent offensive potential.

I agree, we share the same opinion on Bargnani, but does BC and the Raptors share the same sentiment? Could be, could be not. Dont get me wrong, we all fell in love with Amir this past season. His hustle, putbacks, and overall demeanor was just a refreshing thing for the young raps, but, if we see it, so do other GMs. Are other GMs more likely to over-offer for Amir, IMO, yes. And that could be the difference maker. The trio of JV, Amir and Ed would probably not have any problems scoring, but it would be a lot easier if Bargnani is there. Amir is 10 even 20x better as a player than Bargnani ever will be, but the question is, who will be the better fit with the Raps core? IMO, Bargnani is.

I think it's ridiculous for those to say that Colangelo will "never" trade Bargnani. He certainly doesn't have a history of sitting on his mistakes, so there's no reason to think he'll start now.

I dont think he'll never ever trade Bargnani, but i think he wants one more shot at making it work. Like i said, its still a win win for him if it doesnt.

[GarbageTime]

should we start a pool to see when this thread blows up again? I'm calling Dec 7th.

[Tim W.]

should we start a pool to see when this thread blows up again? I'm calling Dec 7th.

You think it's not going to happen until the season starts? I'm guessing as soon as the deal is ratified, since they'll be able to finally trade him...which is something they should do!

[Puffer]

You think it's not going to happen until the season starts? I'm guessing as soon as the deal is ratified, since they'll be able to finally trade him...which is something they should do!

Bargnani is their most effective offensive weapon. Trading him would be stupid when they are going to be in a position to contend for a conference title in 2013/2014.

Puffer












:-)

[Tim W.]

Bargnani is their most effective offensive weapon. Trading him would be stupid when they are going to be in a position to contend for a conference title in 2013/2014.

Puffer

Nice try.

[Puffer]

I did throw the smiley in there at the bottom.

Puffer

[Tim W.]

I did throw the smiley in there at the bottom.

Puffer

Even without the smiley, you were too obvious.

[Tim W.]

So here we go. Here are a list of reasons to show why the argument that Bargnani's rebounding will improve simply by moving him to PF makes very little to no sense.

- There are far, far more above average rebounders at PF than at center, so Bargnani will have to compete with better rebounders to get more rebounds.

- While Bargnani will have a height advantage over most Pfs , most of his them will have a quickness advantage, so it kind of nullifies any advantage.

- Whether by circumstances or by design, Bargnani generally defended the least productive frontcourt player, which was most often the center. By moving him to PF and bringing in a veteran center, Bargnani will have to defend better players. That doesn't bode well for ANY of his stats.