Wilson Chandler to Toronto? Forget about it (473)

[Nilanka]

Also, it seems evident to me, that the end plan is not ''stick with what we have and add Wilson'. There are many more changes to come.

Bingo. This idea is often lost when evaluating trade scenarios. Whether you like Chandler or not, we have to understand that there will be multiple moves made this off season to turn this team around.

[ebrian]

I tend to agree on what we have in James Johnson (at 2.8M for next year) vs. what Chandler would bring for 3x as much money and a longer-term commitment.

That's exactly my thinking. Over the offseason I saw a lot of posts about why we should or shouldn't pursue guys like Tyson Chandler, Samuel Dalembert, etc. I don't see how Wilson Chandler is any different. He's younger? If we should have stayed away from those quality big men because we've got a supposedly great prospect on the way, then I can't think of any good reason to sign Wilson Chandler when we're about to draft what looks to be a pretty good SF in the draft. Unless someone thinks we're suddenly going to turn it around and draft outside the top 5-10.

[Nilanka]

That's exactly my thinking. Over the offseason I saw a lot of posts about why we should or shouldn't pursue guys like Tyson Chandler, Samuel Dalembert, etc. I don't see how Wilson Chandler is any different. He's younger? If we should have stayed away from those quality big men because we've got a supposedly great prospect on the way, then I can't think of any good reason to sign Wilson Chandler when we're about to draft what looks to be a pretty good SF in the draft. Unless someone thinks we're suddenly going to turn it around and draft outside the top 5-10.

But there aren't any LeBron-like sure bets at small forward in the draft. Anyone we draft, whether it's Barnes, MKG, or Jones, may not necessarily get any better than Chandler currently is. They all have "potential" to be stars, but we say that every single year about every single prospect. At some point, you have to go with a proven commodity.

As for the pick itself, it's still a valuable asset in trade discussions. We could potentially address the PG situation that way.

[Matt52]

That's exactly my thinking. Over the offseason I saw a lot of posts about why we should or shouldn't pursue guys like Tyson Chandler, Samuel Dalembert, etc. I don't see how Wilson Chandler is any different. He's younger? If we should have stayed away from those quality big men because we've got a supposedly great prospect on the way, then I can't think of any good reason to sign Wilson Chandler when we're about to draft what looks to be a pretty good SF in the draft. Unless someone thinks we're suddenly going to turn it around and draft outside the top 5-10.

Chandler would be another asset. I already said this in another post so my apologies if you have already read this, but teams looking to trade a top name are generally looking for:

- financial relief (before trade deadline, Barbosa, at draft or after July 1st , cap space)
- a solid, useful player not on a ridiculous contract
- prospect(s)
- draft pick(s)

Is there any guarantee that the player drafted is going to be a franchise player? Do we even know where we'll draft? Is the player drafted even going to be a SF? The lottery does not guarantee much as we saw last year with the 3rd worst record but picking 5th, the Cavs having the worst record picked 4th while the Clippers (Cavs) pick went from 8 to 1.


Also, why should BC or the Raptors box themselves in? Signing Chandler would create so many more possibilities for the Raptors to improve via trade. It also would not limit the Raptors to 'hoping' for current players to get it - and yes that is a direct reference to DeMar. What happens if DeMar is not in a funk? (For the record I think he is).


For the comparisons of James Johnson to Wilson Chandler, I don't think people have seen enough of Wilson Chandler playing. The guy can dribble, has a consistent jumper, and plays solid defense. In no way am I trying to discredit James Johnson but he is a yo-yo when it comes to production. Wilson Chandler - up until the trade to Denver - was a model of consistency.

[SandmanFan]

Wilson Chandler with our current roster would be a starting SF. Maybe the draft falls out in sucha a way that a top SF like MKG, Barnes, Miller, etc falls to us and we just can't pass him up. Ok so now we have a possibly elite but developing SF alongside a consistent contributor in Chandler. Maybe the draftee surpasses him and Chandler becomes a G/F wing off the bench - still a valuable contributor. You need more than 5 players to win a championship.

[ebrian]

Turk was a starter? What does that have to do with anything? You said players were only assets if they were on bargain contracts. Clearly Turk was not a bargain contract yet he was an asset that was able to be flipped for Barbosa - and Turk had 4 years and over $40M left on his contract!

It has to do with everything. I'm just evaluating the trade for what it was. That trade was all about correcting a terrible mistake (signing Turkoglu in the first place). And I've never said the only assets are bargain contracts; not sure where you got that from. You make it sound like that terrible signing can be forgotten because BC magically turned it into a great acquisition. The truth is, Barbosa was someone else's big mistake, and we were just lucky enough to end up with a shorter remaining contract.

The Calderon to Charlotte trade was not a rumour. It was a done deal that was reneged on last minute which Charlotte and MJ have a history of doing. The players were informed and Chandler announced it on Twitter. That is not a rumour, that is a pullout.

Semantics. Rumor or pullout -- it's a trade that never happened. Every mention of that non-trade reminds me of Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite:

"Well, if coach woulda put me in fourth quarter, we’d have been state champions. No doubt. No doubt in my mind. You better believe things had been different. I’d have gone pro in a heartbeat. I’d be making millions of dollars and living in a big ol’ mansion somewhere, soaking it up in a hot tub with my soul mate." Soul mate indeed.

Chandler has shown he is an above average starter in the NBA. If you can get him on a reasonable contract you go for it. He is better than anything currently on the roster at the wing position - offensively and defensively.

If Chandler was 29/30 and a below average player, I'd be in agreement. But we are talking about a 24 year old entering the prime years of his career who is a great defender and extremely versatile. If the idea is to hit the ground running next year, Chandler is certainly a piece to help achieve that. Also, it seems evident to me, that the end plan is not ''stick with what we have and add Wilson'. There are many more changes to come.

Those were again, someone else's words.

And I agree, if it's a reasonable contract. Chandler, when he hits free agency or restricted free agency, will be offered something a long the lines of $32M over 4 years, or $40M over 5 years. That's not an amount we want to be paying a player that we could potentially replace in the draft. We can easily use James Johnson or a Reggie Williams-level player and pay him $12M over 3 years and get pretty much the same result. That's all I'm saying.

Also, I don't think the idea is to hit the ground running next year. If it were we wouldn't have drafted a player last year that we knew wouldn't play in the NBA this year. I think the year we hit the ground running will be 2014. By then if you get your way, we'll still owe Wilson Chandler another $24M over 3 years for keeping the bench warm for Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.

[ebrian]

But there aren't any LeBron-like sure bets at small forward in the draft. Anyone we draft, whether it's Barnes, MKG, or Jones, may not necessarily get any better than Chandler currently is. They all have "potential" to be stars, but we say that every single year about every single prospect. At some point, you have to go with a proven commodity.

As for the pick itself, it's still a valuable asset in trade discussions. We could potentially address the PG situation that way.

Well, I see your point from that perspective. I agree he is a proven commodity. I think the key disagreement in this discussion is likely how good/average I think Wilson Chandler is versus how good a lot of you think he is. I still see a James Johnson with a slightly more polished offensive game, but that's about it. Neither guy can really shoot consistently from beyond 6 feet, and Johnson is more the scrappy guy compared to Chandler who is more gifted. Chandler has also been playing most of his career in a offense-heavy system which leaves me even less impressed. I side with Johnson because while he's not as good as Chandler, we can probably continue to give him $3-4M for the foreseeable future, whereas Chandler will be looking for $7-9M.

I think I can leave it at that.

[Matt52]

It has to do with everything. I'm just evaluating the trade for what it was. That trade was all about correcting a terrible mistake (signing Turkoglu in the first place). And I've never said the only assets are bargain contracts; not sure where you got that from. You make it sound like that terrible signing can be forgotten because BC magically turned it into a great acquisition. The truth is, Barbosa was someone else's big mistake, and we were just lucky enough to end up with a shorter remaining contract.



Semantics. Rumor or pullout -- it's a trade that never happened. Every mention of that non-trade reminds me of Uncle Rico from Napoleon Dynamite:





Those were again, someone else's words.

And I agree, if it's a reasonable contract. Chandler, when he hits free agency or restricted free agency, will be offered something a long the lines of $32M over 4 years, or $40M over 5 years. That's not an amount we want to be paying a player that we could potentially replace in the draft. We can easily use James Johnson or a Reggie Williams-level player and pay him $12M over 3 years and get pretty much the same result. That's all I'm saying.

Also, I don't think the idea is to hit the ground running next year. If it were we wouldn't have drafted a player last year that we knew wouldn't play in the NBA this year. I think the year we hit the ground running will be 2014. By then if you get your way, we'll still owe Wilson Chandler another $24M over 3 years for keeping the bench warm for Michael Kidd-Gilchrist.

Sorry, ebrian. That comment was from golden. Similar views are blending together. Apologies.

Semantics, indeed. You are definitely correct it is a trade that never happened.

Not sure what other comments I misattributed to you but sorry for that as well.

I think the issue I am having is the comparison of James Johnson or Reggie Williams to WC. They are not in the same class, in my opinion. Comparing WC to either guy means, again in my opinion, you have very little idea what his game is all about or his capabilities. WC is a bonafide starter with consistent production who is just 24 years of age - 3 months younger than JJ and nearly a 1.5 younger than Williams. Adding Wilson Chandler would mean Toronto actually has a wing who can be legitimately considered a starter in the NBA. That is not something to take likely since they really have struggled to find one since VC left (not counting the Pizza!Pizza! loving Turkoglu).

As for MKG, who says Toronto is going to get him? Or Barnes? Or Jones? Or Miller for that matter. What happens when you plan for a maybe that never happens? Also, suppose that the Raptors do draft MKG, who is to say he sits on the bench? Why can't WC and MKG start? Again, we are limiting ourselves to possibilities. Who is to say DD is not traded? Who is to say that DD does not come off the bench? The Raptors are a sh!t team right now (as much as it pains me to type it) and no one should be passed over who is a better player because of who might be on the team or who might develop or who might become more consistent in the future.


The idea is very much to hit the ground running next year. BC said it so it must be true - I say that half-jokingly. There are a number of interviews out there where he said it. If the Raptors don't hit the ground running next year, his job here is gone.

[Nilanka]

Well, I see your point from that perspective. I agree he is a proven commodity. I think the key disagreement in this discussion is likely how good/average I think Wilson Chandler is versus how good a lot of you think he is. I still see a James Johnson with a slightly more polished offensive game, but that's about it. Neither guy can really shoot consistently from beyond 6 feet, and Johnson is more the scrappy guy compared to Chandler who is more gifted. Chandler has also been playing most of his career in a offense-heavy system which leaves me even less impressed. I side with Johnson because while he's not as good as Chandler, we can probably continue to give him $3-4M for the foreseeable future, whereas Chandler will be looking for $7-9M.

I think I can leave it at that.

I see your point, but it sounds like you're assuming J.Johnson will improve his offense eventually. This may never happen. And IMO, Chandler is miles ahead of Johnson without a jumper.

[ebrian]

Also, why should BC or the Raptors box themselves in? Signing Chandler would create so many more possibilities for the Raptors to improve via trade. It also would not limit the Raptors to 'hoping' for current players to get it - and yes that is a direct reference to DeMar. What happens if DeMar is not in a funk? (For the record I think he is).

I think signing Chandler would box themselves in. To me there is no difference between signing Wilson Chandler and signing Linas Kleiza. Now I'm talking about contracts, not the actual players who are vastly different. Signing Kleiza made very little sense at the time, and I believe signing Chandler makes very little sense right now, in March or whenever it is he's available. Come back to me in 2014 and I'll be glad to take on a Chandler-type with what a fair fraction of remaining money we have left at that time. I think timing is key too.

For the comparisons of James Johnson to Wilson Chandler, I don't think people have seen enough of Wilson Chandler playing. The guy can dribble, has a consistent jumper, and plays solid defense. In no way am I trying to discredit James Johnson but he is a yo-yo when it comes to production. Wilson Chandler - up until the trade to Denver - was a model of consistency.

I'm not saying Wilson sucks now, obviously he spent very little time in Denver before going to China, but I remain strongly skeptical of any player coming out of a D'Antoni offense. I'll just leave it at that.. I know many will disagree. I just don't trust anyone who looks consistent coming out of that offense.

[Matt52]

I think signing Chandler would box themselves in. To me there is no difference between signing Wilson Chandler and signing Linas Kleiza. Now I'm talking about contracts, not the actual players who are vastly different. Signing Kleiza made very little sense at the time, and I believe signing Chandler makes very little sense right now, in March or whenever it is he's available. Come back to me in 2014 and I'll be glad to take on a Chandler-type with what a fair fraction of remaining money we have left at that time. I think timing is key too.



I'm not saying Wilson sucks now, obviously he spent very little time in Denver before going to China, but I remain strongly skeptical of any player coming out of a D'Antoni offense. I'll just leave it at that.. I know many will disagree. I just don't trust anyone who looks consistent coming out of that offense.

Fair enough.

I don't think Kleiza ever got an opportunity to show what he could do in Toronto. He was injured from the second preseason game onwards and of course then missed a year as we all know.

We'll see how it all works out. I said this elsewhere as well so sorry if you read it but the next 5 months are going to be very exciting. There are so many possibilities between deadline trades, the draft, draft night trades, free agency, and of course off season moves.

[jimmie]

I guess it all depends on what hole you think you'll be filling by paying Chandler $9M per year when the Raptors are contending (that's the goal) 3 years from now. You have to project salaries and production from today to that time. I think James Johnson at a salary of ~4M/year will be more valuable than Chandler at a salary of ~9M/year 3 years from now.

Wilson Chandler may well see career averages in the range of 14pts, 5 rebs, 2 ast with average efficiency. He may well average a steal and a block a game. He's not likely to do any better than that. He's 24, but he's averaged starter's minutes for the past 3 seasons, so thinking he's going to blossom beyond what he already has is probably overly optimistic.

James Johnson is only now (this year and end of last) starting to get serious NBA minutes. He's already showing significant improvement on his shooting form. He's at least as good a defensive prospect as Chandler has shown to be, and I would go further and say he has a good chance to become an elite defender. He may never be a high-scoring SF, but that's not required of him on this team. I know nothing about Wilson Chandler's mental makeup, but what I see of JJ's is just what is needed on this team. Tough son of a gun with boundless energy and a great outlook.

If you're thinking that Chandler offers a significant enough upgrade that he would solve the starting SF question for the next 5 years, and that it's worth $45M to do so, that's cool. I just see more glaring holes that could use that money elsewhere.

I agree that no move occurs in isolation, but SG is a much more glaring hole right now (I see JJ as having a better chance to develop an all-around game than Demar right now), as is PG.

If BC really wants to hit the ground running next year, he needs to find, somehow, either through draft, trade, or free agency:

- a backup C who can let Val develop (might be Amir, might not)
- a PG who can run a team (Calderon on the way out, Bayless incapable)
- a SG who can start (Demar needs to really turn it around, b/c even becoming a consistent 18/2/2 guy isn't going to cut it)

They can muddle through with JJ at the 3 if they have to, no question. If you throw 9M at Chandler, that leaves a lot less to fill those other holes.

[ceez]

Best case scenario: Chandler plays extremely well and ends up being that lockdown swing we've always needed while providing needed scoring

Worst case scenario: I can't really think of one

[Matt52]

I guess it all depends on what hole you think you'll be filling by paying Chandler $9M per year when the Raptors are contending (that's the goal) 3 years from now. You have to project salaries and production from today to that time. I think James Johnson at a salary of ~4M/year will be more valuable than Chandler at a salary of ~9M/year 3 years from now.

Wilson Chandler may well see career averages in the range of 14pts, 5 rebs, 2 ast with average efficiency. He may well average a steal and a block a game. He's not likely to do any better than that. He's 24, but he's averaged starter's minutes for the past 3 seasons, so thinking he's going to blossom beyond what he already has is probably overly optimistic.

James Johnson is only now (this year and end of last) starting to get serious NBA minutes. He's already showing significant improvement on his shooting form. He's at least as good a defensive prospect as Chandler has shown to be, and I would go further and say he has a good chance to become an elite defender. He may never be a high-scoring SF, but that's not required of him on this team. I know nothing about Wilson Chandler's mental makeup, but what I see of JJ's is just what is needed on this team. Tough son of a gun with boundless energy and a great outlook.

If you're thinking that Chandler offers a significant enough upgrade that he would solve the starting SF question for the next 5 years, and that it's worth $45M to do so, that's cool. I just see more glaring holes that could use that money elsewhere.

I agree that no move occurs in isolation, but SG is a much more glaring hole right now (I see JJ as having a better chance to develop an all-around game than Demar right now), as is PG.

If BC really wants to hit the ground running next year, he needs to find, somehow, either through draft, trade, or free agency:

- a backup C who can let Val develop (might be Amir, might not)
- a PG who can run a team (Calderon on the way out, Bayless incapable)
- a SG who can start (Demar needs to really turn it around, b/c even becoming a consistent 18/2/2 guy isn't going to cut it)

They can muddle through with JJ at the 3 if they have to, no question. If you throw 9M at Chandler, that leaves a lot less to fill those other holes.

The longest contract the Raps could offer WC - or any player not on their roster the year before - is 4 years.

I would not pay WC $9M per season - maybe if that was the final year, but not starting.

Also, Chandler could start at SG. JJ is a 3/4. WC is a 2/3.

[Matt52]

But restricted free agent Wilson Chandler is a high priority for the Nuggets, who soon will dispatch GM Masai Ujiri to China to touch base with Chandler in person. Denver will try to sign Chandler to a multiyear deal. But Chandler and fellow restricted free agent Aaron Brooks (Suns) play for teams expected to go deep into the playoffs, potentially delaying their return to the NBA until well into March.

Source: CBSSports.com

I wonder how much it will take for WC to stay in Denver beyond this season and if Denver will be willing to pay it considering other obligations.

[ceez]

They'd also have a glut of swingmen. Maybe we get Corey Brewer at the end of everything?

[golden]

Turk was a starter? What does that have to do with anything? You said players were only assets if they were on bargain contracts. Clearly Turk was not a bargain contract yet he was an asset that was able to be flipped for Barbosa - and Turk had 4 years and over $40M left on his contract!

Sorry Matt, not to be picky, but this is what I (and not ebrian) said. You only picked up on about a 1/3rd of what I was trying to convey:

Chandler (or any player for that matter) is only an "asset" if he's on a bargain contract, relative to how he's playing and/or the year of the contract. Otherwise, he becomes a burden instead of an asset (see Turk, Jose, etc...). In the new CBA, bargain contracts are even more valuable, with less room for mistakes like overpaying middle tier free agents (BC's historical weakness).

Moving on.... In theory, every contract is an "asset", but some are more valuable than others. Even Kwame Brown's expiring contract can be traded for Pau Gasol, but you can't always plan on miracle fixes like that when you acquire the overpaid player in the first place. At this stage, I think the Raps are still trying to figure out exactly WHO the core is, or if they even have a core. Bargnani seems to be emerging, but that's still early to tell. Derozen and Davis may have stalled or regressed. Jonas isn't even here. Bayless isn't panning out. Seems to me like we need to wait another year before adding complimentary pieces like Chandler via free agency. I am against anything that impacts our salary cap & financial flexibility moving forward, until we really know what we've got. BC has a history of bad free agent signings. I'd rather tank another year to get a shot at a top 5 pick who will be on a rookie contract for longer. Trading Bargs is also not out of the question.

[Matt52]

Sorry Matt, not to be picky, but this is what I (and not ebrian) said. You only picked up on about a 1/3rd of what I was trying to convey:


Moving on.... In theory, every contract is an "asset", but some are more valuable than others. Even Kwame Brown's expiring contract can be traded for Pau Gasol, but you can't always plan on miracle fixes like that when you acquire the overpaid player in the first place. At this stage, I think the Raps are still trying to figure out exactly WHO the core is, or if they even have a core. Bargnani seems to be emerging, but that's still early to tell. Derozen and Davis may have stalled or regressed. Jonas isn't even here. Bayless isn't panning out. Seems to me like we need to wait another year before adding complimentary pieces like Chandler via free agency. I am against anything that impacts our salary cap & financial flexibility moving forward, until we really know what we've got. BC has a history of bad free agent signings. I'd rather tank another year to get a shot at a top 5 pick who will be on a rookie contract for longer. Trading Bargs is also not out of the question.

Yes, ebrian alerted me to my mistake.

So back to your point about players only being an 'asset' if he's on a bargain contract, I disagree. Those were your exact words and I gave examples of a very bad contract that turned out to become an asset because it landed Barbosa.

I totally agree that the Raptors are still trying to figure out WHO is part of the core. So when you add an NBA-proven talent on a reasonable contract (in no way am I advocating grossly overpaying for Chandler) you immediately have a definite piece of your core moving forward. In this case it just so happens to be a 24 year old who has shown improvement every year in the NBA offensively and defensively is a top talent capable of guarding 2, 3, and 4. So when the Raptors have an asset like that, suddenly the Raptors are no longer placing all their chips on the development of DeMar DeRozan nor are they placing all their chips on the lottery gods answering their prayers and then hoping the development gods answer the same prayer. Signing Chandler gives them options they otherwise would not have. A player on a decent contract relative to his performance is not a burden in the NBA. I assume the idea of building through the draft comes from the OKC model of development. However, OKC (and Sam Presti) also made a few good trades along the way in addition to drafting Durant and Westbrook.

The very examples of the players named not panning out at this moment for the Raptors is exactly the reason why the Raptors should pursue a bonafide NBA starter if given the opportunity.

In my opinion the idea of tanking another year in hopes of a shot at another top 5 pick who will be on a rookie contract longer is equivalent to the man who cut off his nose to spite his face or the driver spinning his tires stuck in the snow. I guess you did not see the Washington game last night to see one of the possible outcomes of that strategy.

[golden]

Yes, ebrian alerted me to my mistake.

So back to your point about players only being an 'asset' if he's on a bargain contract, I disagree. Those were your exact words and I gave examples of a very bad contract that turned out to become an asset because it landed Barbosa.

I totally agree that the Raptors are still trying to figure out WHO is part of the core. So when you add an NBA-proven talent on a reasonable contract (in no way am I advocating grossly overpaying for Chandler) you immediately have a definite piece of your core moving forward. In this case it just so happens to be a 24 year old who has shown improvement every year in the NBA offensively and defensively is a top talent capable of guarding 2, 3, and 4. So when the Raptors have an asset like that, suddenly the Raptors are no longer placing all their chips on the development of DeMar DeRozan nor are they placing all their chips on the lottery gods answering their prayers and then hoping the development gods answer the same prayer. Signing Chandler gives them options they otherwise would not have. A player on a decent contract relative to his performance is not a burden in the NBA. I assume the idea of building through the draft comes from the OKC model of development. However, OKC (and Sam Presti) also made a few good trades along the way in addition to drafting Durant and Westbrook.

The very examples of the players named not panning out at this moment for the Raptors is exactly the reason why the Raptors should pursue a bonafide NBA starter if given the opportunity.

In my opinion the idea of tanking another year in hopes of a shot at another top 5 pick who will be on a rookie contract longer is equivalent to the man who cut off his nose to spite his face or the driver spinning his tires stuck in the snow. I guess you did not see the Washington game last night to see one of the possible outcomes of that strategy.

Well, you only chose to quote half of my sentence, but anyways, that's not the main point and no need to quibble about it. The main point is that that drafts and trades are much better ways to either build your core or build your assets. Far better than going after free agents. I have absolutely nothing against trades, but I am against free agency (especially if BC is dishing out the contract). Not sure why you used OKC as an example, because I don't recall them going after free agents. They did draft an asset (Jeff Green) who became valuable enough (but still on a cost-effective contract) to flip for a proven center (Perkins) who filled a specific need for them (front court playoff toughness), complementing the existing core. Raps need to continue to stockpile picks and cost-effective talent which can either develop into great players or become tradeable assets to most GMs. I hope you realize that free agency is specifically set up to create bidding wars in favour of the players, such that teams overpay. I hate to go all Glen Silvestri beancounter here, but overpaying for 2nd tier free agents not the way to build a team, IMO.

[Matt52]

Well, you only chose to quote half of my sentence, but anyways, that's not the main point and no need to quibble about it. The main point is that that drafts and trades are much better ways to either build your core or build your assets. Far better than going after free agents. I have absolutely nothing against trades, but I am against free agency (especially if BC is dishing out the contract). Not sure why you used OKC as an example, because I don't recall them going after free agents. They did draft an asset (Jeff Green) who became valuable enough (but still on a cost-effective contract) to flip for a proven center (Perkins) who filled a specific need for them (front court playoff toughness), complementing the existing core. Raps need to continue to stockpile picks and cost-effective talent which can either develop into great players or become tradeable assets to most GMs. I hope you realize that free agency is specifically set up to create bidding wars in favour of the players, such that teams overpay. I hate to go all Glen Silvestri beancounter here, but overpaying for 2nd tier free agents not the way to build a team, IMO.

Where are the Raptors weakest? On the wing.
What position does Wilson Chandler play? The wing.

I've listed the going rate for established, starting wings around the league. The idea was never to overpay for Wilson Chandler. If the Raptors are going to overpay, I'm not interested. The whole point in pursuing Chandler is 1) he has talent and extremely versatile in the 3/2 manner rather the 3/4 as we currently have, 2) he is better than any wing currently on the Raptors roster, 3) Denver has $18M tied up in Gallo and Afflalo. The last one is the whole point. They may not have to over pay given Denver's situation - they have $55M tied up in 10 players for next year with little depth at C and no back up PG. If they sign Chandler they have the MLE and minimum contracts to round out their roster. They might be happy with that though - who knows. However, they also have Ty Lawson coming up for a hefty contract extension after next year that if they sign Chandler and then extend Lawson, they are going to be very close to the luxury tax right at the time the new tax rules are implemented in the CBA.

I absolutely agree the best way to build a team is through trades and the draft. However, it does not mean free agency is not an effective tool. If the Raptors were to sign a wing (say Chandler) they could then flip (say DeMar) for another area of need.

As for OKC and free agency - specifically restricted free agency - they signed CJ Miles to an offer sheet which Utah matched and they signed Nenad Kristic to an offer sheet which NJ did not match.