Puffer wrote:
Let me preface this by saying I am not specifically directing this post at you, but at these kind of comments.
I don't know who the Raptors targeted, aside from Nash, but it is already clear that all of the major free agents are not heading to Toronto. All of the UFA's have already put out pretty clear indications of the 2-3 teams they will entertain offers from. TO is high on the list of "destinations not mentioned."
Despite all the Raps fans talk about Davis' potential, Derozan's potential, Amir's potential it is also pretty clear that Bargs and JV are the only desired players on the roster. And to give them up means the Raps are starting over unless they get back more then they give up. Quite frankly, pro teams with even average management don't get fleeced that often.
In a free and unrestricted market, values of commodities tend to reach equilibrium. Players are commodities. So any talk of "I wouldn't pay more than X dollars for a SF, a PG or a C" is just smoke. You must pay what you must pay or watch the players you want disappear into other teams rosters.
So given all that (if you agree with my little summary), I am wondering what "... the prudent or responsbile way of managing a team or trying to build a real contender" is?
We know the Raptors have had to overpay for US born players to come here, unless they took a detour through Europe first (Anthony Parker and Antonio Davis for example), and yet when the Raptors have chased European or South american players the management gets criticized for being "Euro-centric."
All that is left is the draft. So how are the Raptors supposed to improve through the crap shoot that we call the NBA draft? Obviously, they simply have to have scouting staff and player analysis team members who are significantly better than the staff on the other 29 NBA teams. And then have that analysis staff be right at least 75% of the time. that way they can upgrade their roster with 2 good players (for the position they were drafted) in every three years. In other words, they could significantly improve their starting five in only 7.5 years.
Is that what is meant by "prudent management?" I didn't think so. I guess what is meant is management that actually made some of the moves we kind of fantasize about them making, even though there is no way in hell of any of them actually being made. Or maybe what is meant by prudent management is making those 2 or 3 moves every year, out of the 60 that are made, that seem to come late in the season and are judged, with all the accuracy of hindsight, to have been brilliant.